I thunk it's less of an opinion piece and more of PR publicity piece angling for tolerance and understanding for differences among the gifted species. �Supposedly, according to one of the few books I've ever read, in the old days they had a saying about the gifted called, "early ripe. �Early rot.". And everybody help a mental image of genius being sickly, pale nerdy weaklings. �It was the 1800's or something. �Some guy (I better look it up. �It is important) revolutionized the definition of giftedness by studying gifted kid's in California, who were social, tanned, active, athletic. �Now days it's all over the Internet some people are trying to counter that extreme stereotype, saying that achievement doesn't define giftedness.. �Blah, blah. It squashes the soul to train the kid's to produce and perform. This generation is bringing to light 2E geniuses with disabilities. �It's really trying to add more shades of grey to perceptions about giftedness. �This piece nicely illustrated one gray shade in that rainbow.
Of course, where this becomes a problem for the rest of everybody is that everything boils down to allocation of resources. � I get it when they say, you're so smart, make due with what you got. �Everybody else has more problems, less talent, and needs more help. ��
I get it when they say that's nice, but wasting our nations talent pool by not developing it will cost everybody more in long run in lost returns.
I get it when they say, wait! �Gifted kid's aren't national resources to be developed. They're kid's. �They're people. �they deserve to have their needs met just like everybody else, not just because they're worth something. �That's what I hear (read) parents of gifted kid's arguing for, even parents who's kid's may not be 2E and may even be high performing. �They wants gifted kid's needs met, based on need, not performance. �And that's the altruism behind that.
I think this piece was written about tolerance, resource allocation, and giftedness not being defined by performance. �And the writer did a good job with it. �Anyway, that's what I read into it. �
((I really don't think giftedness, especially creativity, is that delicate that you would squash it by teaching new stuff. �Jmo)). � (((I also am not sold on gifted classes based on personality rather than performance yet, at this point, as the best use of limited educational resources. �I do believe in providing resources if it makes a difference and actually let's a kid keep up in class, even a gifted class.)))�
