www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2008/10/15/08gifted_ep. (i was able to sign up for free and had access to this full article.)

I'm not so keen on this quote, but i guess we'll have to wait and see what the book has to say when it comes out in January.



The review goes on to state this:


Here's the Amazon description of the book:
http://www.amazon.com/Development-G...mp;s=books&qid=1224132886&sr=8-1

Hmm. I'm concerned about this bit:



Sounds dangerously like phony egalitarianism to me.

I'll go back to our hackneyed sports analogy here. No one would seriously suggest that sprinting or jumping talent is something mostly "developable" and not innate. Yeah right, like someone's going to take a kid who runs the 100 in 13 seconds with a tailwind and "develop" her into Flo-Jo without kilograms of steroids and bionic legs? I don't think so.

(Though perhaps Ms. Dweck did indeed come close to making that suggestion?!?)

Yet educators and others continue to claim that we can raise IQ or pretend that it doesn't matter anyway. And now we having giftedness "waxing and waning" as though brains were tide pools. I guess this gives these folks an excuse to keep believing they have no role in creating gifted high schoolers who perform "solidly in the middle."

The review (and presumably the book?) makes some good points about teaching kids to try hard. And the guy from Hunter College made great points. I just get dubious when I see the stuff about giftedness "waxes and wanes."

!

Val
<RANT OFF!>

There's a model that distinguishes 'Gifts' from 'Talents' in that 'Gifts' relate to potential or equipment for learning in various areas, while 'Talents' refers to actual skill that have been developed.

Now it's easy to say that not All Gifts become Talents, and that children with Gifts need adult help to develop Talents. A child with early signs of Giftedness sure can be so depressed or anxious or actin-out in elementary school that they miss developing the orgasnizational lessons of Middle School and don't seem very 'Talented' in by the end of High School. Of course Dweck doesn't address that at least 'some' of these kids will then go on to 'fall in love' with learning in College or even Graduate School and end up 'right back at the top of the pack' where they started.

But yeah, lots don't turn enough of their Gifts into Talents to really feel at home in their skins as adults. LOL - and then the babies come along, and often wipe the slate clean for those of us who have primary child-raising duty.

Where's the chapter on Parenting through the Gifted Lifespan?

((smiles))
Grinity

I agree with the concerns expressed. I do see some hope, though.

The notion that if you don't nurture talent, it can go away seems to me to be a healthy call to schools to do more for GT kids, no? "Use it or lose it" is pretty simple for a teacher to understand, and it could possibly get said teacher to actually challenge a GT kid. It calls the (dumb!) notion that GT kids never need to be taught anything into question.

I agree with Grinity and Kriston. Use it or lose it has been a common attitude about early testing. There have been numerous studies that show kids that score gifted early on can move more to the middle by 7th grade. And others who move into the gifted category.

Also, the studies that showed in the inner city of Los Angeles, that IQs could be raised by 10 points with one year of music lessons on a string instrument or piano.

I don't think anyone is going to suggest you can move an average scoring child into the prodigy range. But I do not think you can take a PG kid and move him into the prodigy range by training.

A prodigy is something very unusual.

I posted a while ago that I was doing the Brain Quest kindergarten while we were in the car. DD had to look for B words. There were 8 items. She said bullrushes. Then she said there were 2 groups of bullrushes, so it should count for 2. Bullrushes were not even in the list, no surprise. Yesterday in the bath, I was the yellow turtle and I got caught in the bullrushes, (a pile of bubbles) and she asked me what bullrushes were.

I thought about how many times weird answers would kick into her head, like math at 2 or sight read. But there is the other side of her brain that has to work at reading or math. And it like one innate side has these magical answers but if she doesn't learn the rules to reading or math, she could lose it. Maybe I am wrong.

She has a strong cognitive reasoning but I could see her losing some skills without the work. I know gen ed wouldn't work for her.

Ren

Sing it, sister! Right on the mark, kcab!

I agree completely with kcab. I believe that the ability for giftedness does not wax or wane, but the expression of that ability - the part that we measure and observe - does. If a gifted child ends up in the middle of the pack in 7th grade, then that is called underachievement. It a *regular* child suddenly shoot ahead in 7th grade, then they were probably a gifted child that never had the fire and love of learning sparked before.

It is the primary job of education to find that spark in all children. The heights to which that spark takes them is based on their giftedness.

Yes, I think it's a wise distinction kcab is making.

I don't think one can become "un-GT," or for that matter, can become more GT. That's ability, and it's what you come with. Luck of the draw at birth.

But nurturing innate ability can make for higher achievement, better use of that talent, sharper skills. Ignoring or abusing ability can dull it, retard its development, and make it effectively get "lost." I like the image of the naturally fast sprinter who doesn't train. Eventually, someone similarly GT--or someone less innately GT, but who works hard to hone the skill--will outrun him. Soon, he doesn't seem all that GT a runner at all.

Both the initial, inherent GTness *and* a real challenge to those abilities are required for a GT athlete or a GT child to achieve as they are capable of achieving.

(And that's not even touching the tendency of some GT kids to mask their talents on purpose in order to fit in better. That's a form of "losing it" too, only it's purposeful on the part of the child. )

I'll just quote ebeth to end this message, because I really love this statement:



You go, girl!

Thanks, Kriston. Kcab inspired me to wax lyrical there for a second. Now back to doing the dishes!

Wanna do mine, too? That's where I'm headed next!

It really comes down to motivation and environment.

At some point, no matter who you are, things will start to require hard work. Without the capacity for hard work and then the work-multiplying things like organization, discipline, time management, prioritization, measuring tradeoffs, social skills, emotional maturity, and one's peer network, a gifted kid just becomes another drop out who just happens to learn fast.

OK, time for the devil's advocate. One some site, read that Hiliary Clinton's IQ is 125. But I think she is a perfect example of someone who maximized her potential.

Now, I think the DNA beneficiary gifted person may be able to just see things that she may not see without guidance, who scores higher on the IQ test? Because we do base a lot on scores here.

And that is the point. The DNA may still be there, like a natural runner, who doesn't look goofy when they jog, but will they optimize?

I am going on tangent. There are a number of people who saw this financial crisis coming. I happen to have been in the mix when securitization of mortgages started in the 90s. And we were out of the market more than a year ago. Julian Robertson was out of the market. There is no shortage of really smart people who said to get out, we are in for serious correction. But people seem surprised. That is the difference between tweaking the just above average and the brilliant. The above average are the pack.

And I think that happens across industries. I remember in the late 80s, the chief engineer for Oldsmobile had the best engine on the market. He had this engine sitting in his office in Lansing. Magazines wrote about this engine. But it never got into production. Really. It is amazing the stupid corporate stories there are. Really smart people running companies, but they aren't brilliant and can't find their way out of a tube. But why are they running the corporations? Because the brilliant kids are under achieving.

And that was my point, a long way around. Sorry, on the second glass of wine, it is Friday.

Ren

Look up Propulse technology, thermo-electrics, and free pistons. Its going to be a big deal.

As for engines, I talked to German engineers in Reno working for VW over 10 years ago when they were driving their diesel Rabbit protoptypes around the US. They were getting 55+ mpg even back then and those vehicles just now started hitting the market.

Right now, from my perspective, its taking 3-4 years for my ideas to make it into the real world after I write a white paper. The big problem is waiting for the need for them to appear in others' minds.

DEC had a desktop PC running windows with a secure, mature OS long before Intel or Microsoft did. VMS is still the top OS for many applications. But its basically dead. Tremendous resources have been expended recreating what was there all along, with little new to show for it after all this time.

Its human to reinvent the wheel, making it octagon in shape, then claim its better than the round wheel we have had around for a thousand years. A lot of bumpy rides must be had before the "inventor" finally arrives back at the right shape that others had laready done years before.

Its also human to play whack a mole, thinking its progress, rather than just unplug the machine. People think they get paid to whack the moles, not stop the moles.

Let's examine Hillary. Here is a speculation. Had Hillary dumped Bill when they were in Berkeley and stayed in California and made Marin her home and run for office, she'd likely be Governor, and given her penchant for doing things, a much better one. Bill would never have been Governor, but would have gone into the House and ended up as Speaker, a post he'd likely have held as long as Sam Rayburn did, and likely he would have had a greater impact there with his abilities to work with and listen to people.

The problem with intelligence and design is that the operators of the system will not be as smart. Nor will the later modifiers of it.

Things have to be made for the lower common denominator or at least explained to them or at last set up to where they can't mess it up - but they will!! ( Leave something out and the bridge falls down..)

Someone has to serve as that link - they must be smart enough to understand the smarties, but conversant enough to work with everyone. Smarties, unless they spend a lot of time with a lot of different people, will struggle to communicate properly. And communication is the key to getting things done or selling products. One assumption is that smarties' time is too valuable to spend on things others can do better.

I'm always skeptical of statements about people's IQs. Where, exactly, would one get this information? From some dishonest psychologist? Did Hillary brag about it? Yeah, right...

So I'm not buying the example from the get-go.

I do think you're right, Ren, that--as kcab suggested--*achievement* can be optimized. I just don't think people can get "more GT." I just don't. That's ability, and it's part of the package or it isn't. You have the capacity or you don't. Neglect or abuse can ruin what you've got, but you can't get more ability. Either you had the capacity from birth or you did not. Aside from prenatal vitamins to ensure brain development in a fetus and obvious basics of that nature, I just don't believe you can "make" someone more GT. Anything you do helps them *achieve* more, and that's great. But it doesn't change their LOG. That LOG necessarily was present within them or else they couldn't attain it. It's the basic definition of ability. You have it or you don't.

On the flip side, we all know that "practice makes perfect," and that if you don't use your skills, they deteriorate. Are you still GT? Yes, the ability is still present. But you're not achieving.

Consequently, anything that gets schools to stretch GT kids sounds pretty good to me. Does it make them "more GT"? No. But it does allow them to maximize their abilities.

Otherwise, what is the difference between ability and achievement? Do you see them as the same, Ren?

I think people tend to get promoted beyond what they can actually do. A guy who is a fabulous financial wizard isn't necessarily going to be a great leader of people and CEO, you know?

No evidence to back me up, but it's my theory on why the cream doesn't always seem to rise to the top...

Plus some GT people are quite hard to get along with. (Not all, but some.) That doesn't usually lead to promotions. Seeing the world differently freaks people out a lot of the time. There's a fine line between "vision for the future" and "nutcase."

Remember 'The Peter Principle?'
I'm either old or precosious - or both!

No, I don't know it. So is my theory not my own? I'd love to cite a source instead of just spouting my own half-baked ideas!

Well, you two are no older than I am, so clearly I am just ill-read!

No, let's say I was reading Shakespeare and Ezra Pound instead of reading economic theory, shall we? It would make me feel less bad about myself! :p

Yup, that's pretty much what I believe.

I must have gotten the theory from my parents through osmosis or something, because I'd swear I've never heard of the book!

BTW, the book and I were born the same year...

Ok, now I have to go look that up...

Well, whaddya know? I thought we were the same age. You may be older, but I'm clearly the one with the faulty memory!

I'm sure you're being much too hard on yourself about your leadership abilities, kcab. But if not, just assume it's the Peter Principle in action and figure you've been promoted to exactly the right spot, right?

<spoken with a good-natured twinkle in my eye>

Just got back. Your question Kriston, ability vs. achievement.

I think there is a very grey area in the middle. Obvious definitions on the extremes. The extreme on ability being the prodigy. But if you watched that video link on Mark Yu and what Lang Lang said about the teenage years and what the narrator talked about frontal lobe development during that time.

If the brain is developing, then it is possible that you can lose it, or it is modified to the point where you may not be GT anymore.

I think there is actual brain develop that occurs then that counters the fact that you cannot lose ability.

And if you get the training, that brain development may give you ability.

How much, I do not know. But I think ability vs achievement is a fine line in many cases until 21.

Ren

LOL - I'm much closer to 'O' - and I think I read the book from my parent's bookshelf (so that means it was in paperback) - sometime between the age of 10 and 16. Don't know why I bothered to retain it, except that I have a soft spot for 'contrarian' ideas. Kriston, I'll bet you did overhear your parents talking about it 'back then' so that makes you precosious too.

I also read 'I'm OK, You're OK' during that period - I wasn't ready for Jane Austin, but loved pop psychology/sociology! Now that I think of it, I'm still probably spouting what I read in that book.

And now, as a special Saturday morning treat - The problems of highly gifted children age 3-10 as seen through the 'I'm OK, You're OK' mindset.

I'm OK, You're OK: A child who is taught at their readiness level develops trust in themself and trust in the Adults who are in charge of them.

You're OK, I'm not OK: The Athorities put me in a classroom full of kids who can only do 'baby work,' and I can barely manage to force myself to do that - so I must be really stupid, and the Grown up know it!

I'm not OK, You aren't OK: School is terrible. The adults are stupid and I'm stupid too.

You aren't OK, I'm OK: My Adults are clearly stupid. I'm smarter than they are. I don't know everything, so if I run into a situation I can't handle, I'm out of luck. No wonder I'm so anxious and sad.

(If I remember correctly, this last position, although appealingly close to the truth at times, is the most dangerous - it is the one that really fills the definition of 'depriving a child of their childhood.')

I think that my DS had been in all of these 'positions' over the years. I'm grateful that he's in a -
I'm mostly OK, You are mostly OK, but we are human, so we all have weaknesses and make some mistakes.

Ahh! The joy of having the years knock the edges of that 'all or none' thinking!

I hope that brings back more happy memories than sad ones. I'm LOLing just to see what I can remember from way back then!

Love and More Love,
Grinity

"I'm OK, You're OK" I DO remember, Grin! Good summary! That one I read from my parents' bookshelf. But they didn't have "The Peter Principle," because if they had, I'm sure I'd have read that, too. I read pretty much every book in the house...

Ren, the question is how much can we affect the brain development that occurs. Yes, neurons are growing and shrinking, connecting and pruning connections all the time. But assuming a decent basic level of care and intellectual stimulation, that doesn't mean that the actions we take in the world outside the brain are going to make for more or better connections. Just different ones. The child who focuses on the violin to the exclusion of all else might be "made" a musical prodigy, but at what cost? Maybe she'd have been a great researcher who discovered the cure for cancer if her parents had taken a different tack. Maybe she'd have written life-changing novels. Maybe she'd have solved a great engineering problem. As Austin said, we don't know what the opportunity cost was, what the alternative could have been. Focus isn't necessarily good for kids, particularly if it doesn't come from the kids.

Do I think we can affect the outcome of our kids' paths by what we as parents (and by what the schools) do? Yes. That's why I'm homeschooling. I think I am affecting his work ethic, his interest in learning, his feeling of being accepted for who he is, etc. Without my intervention, I don't think DS7 would have gotten that "decent basic level of intellectual stimulation."

But do I think I'm somehow making my son "smarter" by homeschooling? No. I see no evidence of that. He's just using what he's got more efficiently.

FWIW...

Even more chilling, that mindset is pervasive in psychopaths and other criminals.

I wonder if hours of video game playing does permanent damage to a developing childs mind? I'd think if not by direct damage then at least by an indirect method of preventing them from learning other things.

I totally agree that options taken, can cut off paths. But I also think kids can find their own way.

I come from a small Canadian city, whose medical/enginnering parents thought that medicine or engineering were the ways. Particularly as they came post depression and WW2 from Europe. But after doing the engineering thing in college, I never worked as an engineer but went straight to Wall St. Don't even know how that happened. But I did always want to play "executives living in NYC" as a child, as my long time friend reminded me. So my path was somehow wired in.

DH knew a woman in college who was obsessed with learning Chinese, spent a summer in China learning how to write the script. She went to law school and became highly successful doing deals in China. A blond, American whose parents never pushed her towards this path.

I think if you give them options, they will find what they want. But I think giving them options is part of what we are talking about in how we educate them. But opening up options to all children is a good thing.

This went off tangent I think from ability/achievement.

Ren

Ren, now I'm picturing you as Baby Bette Midler in "Big Business." Don't hit me with your purse, OK?

Grins

Funny Grinity.

R

This is not a new idea. Hasn't anyone heard of Reuven Feuerstein? and his Instrumental Enrichment (FIE)? Dr. Feuerstein's whole premise is that intelligence can be taught. He's worked with children who survived the Holocaust, autistic and Down Sydrome children, etc.

While FIE may not make everyone brilliant, it proves that cognitive function can be improved.

As a world, we had better become invested in improving the cognitive function of all the members of our societies - students, workers, parents and elders, and from every location of the bell curve. So far it has been one group against another - I think we are ready to change that stance.

Grinity

I agree Grinity.

High quality education is the best way to provide opportunity for all.

As for developing a child's intelligence I believe it's all about stimulation. Talk with them. Sing with them. Play with them. Give them different experiences. Once they are in school experiences seem to become focused on advanced classes. But evern that is not enough to help them grow and learn and become a well-rounded human being. Frustration and learning how to deal with it is part of the formula.

Seems to me there are plenty of Alpha-parents out there pushing their kids to do more, sooner -- whether the child is GT or not. I'm not sure this is always a good thing.

We, as a world, can no longer afford to write off people because they are poor or of color or practice a particular religion. We also cannot affort to burn out our best and brightest. The more we have haves and have-nots the more unstable our world will be.

**stepping off the soap box**

By the way, St. Pauli Girl what is the exact title of the book reviewed? I haven't been able to find it in Amazon. Thnx.

This is exactly my worry, too. It's why I stress that while it's possible to improve achievement through specialization and pushing, that improvement comes at a cost.

The hardest job I ever had was cleaning out a boiler at a coal fired plan right out of the Army while waiting for College to start. I did it with men who lived in a half-way house for violent felons. They had tattoos and scars ( which was not cool 20 years ago ) and had some pretty amazing stories to tell.

Some of them read at quite a high level while some could not read at all, some were Muslim, some were Atheists, some were black, some white, but most of them share one thing - they hated their parents.

I also fostered 18 kids.

The biggest problem in our society is not poverty or the schools, its parents who will not raise their kids properly or at all. Sometimes its drugs, sometimes its depression or other mental illness, sometimes they don't protect them, and sometimes its lack of knowledge, and sometimes its just a lack of attention. It all begins at home.

One step that would make this better is some form of Parent Education taught in schools. The big battle over sex ed misses the point and the broader topic should be some sort of Family Education - or better - how to care for and raise kids, budget and plan meals, find a place to live, etc.

One could argue that with better sex ed there would be fewer reluctant parents...

Charisma is a funny thing to me.

Charisma is that undefined quality that makes people want to do things for you. Its also called star quality. It opens doors. Literally. Some people keep it after their looks fade. Some people's Charisma is so good it burns through predjudice or even convictions - just watch Hillary or Palin work a room. My wife has this as well and she works it and why she made President in her early 30s.

Speaking solely for myself - I know that there are two leadership roles I can assume well- and the rest do not work for me. The first, is the military/ranching role or emergency situations where clear instructions, hard labor and a brave face work. The second is the intellectual leadership and force of will when something has to be done that is intellectually complex with lots of smart people involved - such as getting something big and complicated to work. I am not good at other roles because I cannot stand lack of perfection or vague relationships or interactions based upon non-concrete things.

I also do not respond like those who respond to Charisma such as those who hang around stars, sports players, politicians, etc. Social proof means nothing to me and I am offended by people trying to charm me.

Thinking specifically about GT, kids should learn about their leadership styles. Everyone has a leadership role to play in their lives. Leadership can be studied like any other topic and its quality can be discerned like any other personality trait or role. Kids can learn where they would work best and worse as leaders and then try not to force their squareness into a round hole. They can also learn about leadership and management in some easy ways ( large scout troop) or the hard way ( manage a retail store ) while they are still at home.

LOL.

My oldest niece had to carry that whiny doll around for a week, feed it, clothe it, change it, etc.

That did more for making her careful than any book argument read by a stuffy teacher other than my "God's Gift to Women" comments.

It is The Development of Giftedness and Talent Across the Life Span
by Frances Degen Horowitz (Editor), Rena F. Subotnik (Editor), Dona J., Ph.D. Matthews (Editor)

Wow, just came back to this after several busy days. What a lot of great comments! I have been operating with a serious lack of sleep, so I don't think I can add anything profound to this discussion. I do need to go back and watch the mark yu video. I stopped before I got to anything dealing with physcial changes in the brain of teenagers. I do think that in the next few years, with all the brain research exploding because of new technologies able to better look at the brain's functioning, we are going to see some new developments in how children learn best. And with luck, these new developments will benefit every child, GT or not. I hope this book touches on some of the research possibilities.

Not having "felt" gifted growing up (though knowing in retrospect that I was) I have a hard time deciding what I think about whether you can lose giftedness. I think it is much easier to learn when you are young, however, and we need to make a concentrated effort to get to kids when they are young, before 3rd grade when most gifted programs start.

OK, i'm babbling. Off to take nap...

Thanks. I found it.

Wednesday Nov 19, there is an EdWeek Live chat w/ the authors of this book. I learned about it at Unwrapping the Gift blog. Unwrapping the Gifted

Thanks for posting that, looks very interesting. I'm going to try to attend or at least read the transcript.

Here's the transcript:
Evolving Definition of Giftedness

You might have to sign up to view edweek materials (it's free).