Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums General Discussion What Should Everyone Know about Gifted Education?

I have been gathering sources for a research project for a while and am reading a lot of books about human intelligence and gifted education. A bibliography of the books I've been reading or referring to, with annotations about some of the best sources, can be found at

Intelligence Citations Bibliography

The various authors who write about human intelligence and gifted education by no means all agree with one another. I'm trying to give each source a close reading and to tease out what the genuine consensus is on certain important issues. I hope to submit some of my writing output to peer-reviewed professional research journals. But I'd also like to write popular articles for parents that address their concerns.

To make my writings relevant and helpful to parents of gifted children, I'd like to ask for your suggestions. From a parental perspective, what issues are well understood by educators, and what issues are most controversial when parents try their best to guide their children's educations well? What facts about human intelligence do you find are most neglected by people who ought to know them? What myths about gifted education are most influential in today's schools? What issues do you wish more people knew more about, so that gifted learners could receive better educations?

These are some examples of misinformation and myths that seem to be prevalent in schools:

*the thinking that keeping gifted kids with their age-peers is better for them socially.

*the assumption that gifted means speedy more than deep.

*the assumption that gifted means gifted in everything, and if not, then the child "isn't that gifted."

*that teaching in a differentiated, meaningful way for gifted kids is possible in a classroom full of 30 heterogeneous kids.

*that gifted kids don't need attention since they already know the material.

*that it's okay to have gifted kids teach other kids the material "in order to more fully understand the material themselves."

*that a kid must be highly able in both verbal and non-verbal areas in order to be identified as gifted.

Thank you for the work you're doing and for the information.

I agree with all the above, and add....

that all kids even out by 3rd grade (my dd would have to learn nothing for the next 2 to 3 years and drop down several grade levels to make this true)

Let me add to KADmom's very fine list of points with this personal favorite myth:

* Gifted children are not "at-risk" students; they are highly capable, after all-- and will be fine on their own no matter what kind of educational environment they find themselves in.

* Gifted children are happiest and most fulfilled when they can "coast" academically in comfortable material that they have mastery over.

* Perfectionism can be healthy; gifted students should learn that they should always earn 100% on academics, since they are capable of that. This just teaches highly capable students to seek excellence.

* Gifted children are extroverted, assertive-- natural leaders.

* Gifted children are industrious, hard workers who like to please authority figures.

* All gifted children are autodidacts.

What is ironic to me is that such things are far more true of optimally-intelligent children than of gifted ones.

* Gifted children should spend time working on areas of WEAKNESS, not allowed to work in their areas of strength/high ability. This keeps them from becoming arrogant and keeps their skills developing more "evenly."

This brings me to yet another point--

* you can-- and should-- work to keep gifted children from being so asynchronous.

MANY educators subscribe to this notion, as strange as it seems.

* Gifted children are more mature than neurotypical age-mates, and therefore children who are age-appropriate in the development of executive skills aren't actually gifted.

Ironically enough the thing that's come up repeatedly here is the idea that highly gifted kids have a splinter strength, possibly a major weakness and generally most skills not that much above average. Surely it's unfair to expect them to be ahead across the board and better to just subject accelerate the strength and let them cruise and be a kid for the rest.

Regarding issues and myths, there may be a common conflation of the concepts of "giftedness" and "opportunity". As an example, people may say that a child is so gifted that they attended a particular school or camp... or accomplished a specific personal goal.

While Giftedness and Opportunity may sometimes align, people may need to understand that natural giftedness occurs in every demographic. Despite strong internal drive there is not a direct proportional correlation between giftedness and access to opportunity, connections, or financial resources to empower a student to achieve or accomplish their desired goals.

Example:
In addition to experiencing delays in achieving their personal goals when they reach out to potential mentors who subsequently decline support... unfortunately some gifted students also suffer the indignity of seeing their goals permanently thwarted when the potential mentor chooses to take the gifted student's original ideas and to support other children in accomplishing them. This undermines and invalidates a gifted child while affirming and boosting others; It may be one strategy utilized by schools to close achievement gaps and/or to close excellence gaps.

Summary:
In summary, where Giftedness may be nature, the provision of Opportunity is nurture:
- A lack of Opportunity does not equal a lack of Giftedness.
- An abundance of Opportunity does not equal Giftedness.
Fortunately, understanding this may help facilitate the provision of opportunity for talent development and achieving personal goals for gifted children. Especially for those who attempt to self-advocate for the support they seek.

NAGC List of Myths About Gifted Students:
More Myths on this NAGC webpage (backed up on the WayBack Machine, here.)

Great list!

Let me add:

A Gifted child cannot have a learning disability and a child with a learning disability or developmental delay cannot be gifted.

As a PG 23 year old, I had a question for you all that closely aligns to this thread:

Is it part of the "overexcitabilities" --or is it a myth--to be particularly sensitive to changes in temperature, light, smell, and particularly vision (details no one in the normal range will notice) ?

Sometimes I am extremely disturbed by lights flickering, or even the sound of a clock chiming 60 (or more) feet away. Is this just an individual habit, or is it common for other gifted individuals to experience this?

Thanks in advance =]

I think it's not unusual, in that it tends to be comorbid with high IQ.... but sensory sensitivity also tends to be comorbid with other non-NT ways of being, too. Folks on the autism spectrum also quite often have sensory sensitivities that place them well outside the range of NT people...

though there are "highly sensitive" people of more normative IQ, too.


My DH has no sensory OE's or hypersensitivities, but DD and I both do. She is PG, and DH and I are both probably in HG/EG range. So it's just coincidence, IMO. My ex-MIL had auditory hypersensitivity, though not as extreme as my own-- and honestly I doubt that she was even MG.

QT, those are frequently comorbid. It is precisely the sort of thing overexcitabilities exists as a term to describe. Though, particularly i this context, I'm thikning I don't like the "over" part. That kinda implies a flaw rather than a state of being.

Though not framed in the terms of a myth, I'd add:
For the teacher, that kid staring off into space may not be inattentive but may rather be attentive to a degree you can't imagine. They aren't just learning about that one event in history, but are contemplating the implications of it to other situations and future events and what other information they might like to expand on in that context. Give them space to do it, they are self motivated to accomplish what should be the highest aspiration of teaching. Enabling is easier than controlling.

Gifted people aren't just full of internal richness, but often experience the world in richer detail with a greater awareness of emotions, sounds, visual distractions, smells, etc. Be aware of the sort of distractions that may keep some kids from operating at their appropriate level.

The People is an interesting movie from 1972.

I'll bite. Truths:

1. The responsibility of the teacher is not simply to educate the child, but also to provide an environment that explicitly and implicitly communicates to the gifted child the value of his/her unique perspective.

2. Sensitivity arising from preternatural maturity of thought process and OE can be misinterpreted as immaturity.

3. Giftedness presents in early childhood. Meeting the child at his/her level is necessary at all ages, not simply starting in grade 3 or later

4. It is NOT the responsibility of the young child to actively seek out enrichment or accommodations from teachers. These should be forthcoming and commensurate to the child's ability and interest without the child having to make a spectacle of himself/herself in front of classmates to access an adequate education.

5. Parents who sensitively feed child-led learning are in no way damaging their children or causing them to lose out on childhood.

Although it's pretty obvious what's intended in each case, people should say whether their statements are in "truth format" or "myth format".

True, but I will make a stronger statement. When the schools fail to teach children at their level and parents make up for this by afterschooling, the schools, not the parents, are primarily responsible for the children having less free time. For example, my rising 6th grader is ready to study precalculus, but the school district won't do so for several more years. So he may have to take EPGY courses in addition to school math. I do not consider his vegetating mathematically for four years an acceptable option.

That makes the math class in school a form of free time.

I recommend napping during that time.

No, it certainly isn't acceptable. Good elaboration.

I'm particularly sensitive to sound. I've been noted to be one of the very few people at a loud party or concert complaining about ear pain. I've also demonstrated an ability to quickly and correctly identify sounds easier than most. This sensitivity also manifests itself in music and an ability to do a variety of voices and impressions.

DW is particularly sensitive to smell. She is strongly repulsed (and sometimes even nauseated) by bad smells that most people can tolerate. She's also demonstrated an ability to quickly identify various smells. This sensitivity manifests itself in cooking (taste is over 90% smell), as she's a trained and gifted chef.

DD exhibits BOTH of these sensitivities, and expands on DW's by being rejecting otherwise delightful dishes that others consume and suffer from mild food poisoning.

I had a coworker who suffered from headaches due to the usually imperceptible flickering of fluorescent overhead lighting, and insisted he had to wear a cap in the office. Based on my experiences with him, I'd say he had to be at least MG.

Except that, unless taking a nap was what you actually wanted to do with that time, it isn't exactly "free."

One thing that used to drive me nuts at school was that I never could fall asleep at my desk, no matter how badly I needed it (see the sound sensitivity above).

Then do whatever you feel like as long as it doesn't bother other people.

If the school has a problem, that's their problem.

I don't know about the statistics, but I have significant aural sensitivity, and some visual sensitivity too. I really can't stand the sound of my own breathing, so I tend to breath in a way that is silent... which I think increases my sensitivity to other sounds. When everything is quiet at night, I can year minor ticking or dripping sounds that are quite far away as if they were close. It's like my hearing re-calibrates to a level of sensitivity that others can't reach. I much prefer to sleep in pitch-black silence.
I have also proven my ability to discern audio differences thought to be imperceivable by many experts in the sound reproduction field, through abx testing. I have also failed to discern differences which are claimed to be easily perceptible by the manufacturers of expensive audio components. Somehow those differences that are so obvious to many in simple A/B testing tend to disappear with abx testing.

In the truth pile: Gifted students are not all alike. Teaching strategies that work for a PG kid may not work for a HG kid, or even another PG kid. Or even that same PG kid a year later. ("You've met one gifted kid, you've met one gifted kid.")

Myth:
*That a child who is dramatically ahead in K, must be hothoused.
*That a kid who reads encyclopedias, must be forced to do so.
*That is doesn't hurt a kid to coast year after year in school.
*There's something EVERY kid needs to learn in K (or 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc.)
*Gifted classes are too stressful for kids, even if they're GT.
*Don't put your kid in the HGT class because those kids are weird. (OK, it's not a myth that many of them are unusual, but they would be anyway.)

Truth:
*Some kids don't want to skip, even when they're years ahead of their peers. (Like my son, who is 4 years ahead in math and 5 years ahead in LA. He likes to be around kids his own age.)
*Most kids would rather be challenged than coast.
*Even PG kids need and want to be taught. (My son's teacher gave him a math book in 4th grade and told him if he needed help, to ask. My son never asked, but he HATED math that year.)
*Not all gifted kids are able to advocate for themselves, and therefore they seem like they don't care about schoolwork, when they actually do.

this! all of this! and man, did we ever find out the hard way.

YES!!!

Especially point 2-- if you see signs of avoidance of challenge in a gifted child, that ought to be a klaxon of warning for perfectionism. Time to examine the relative level of challenge in that child's life-- and to look at the history of how well (or poorly) that child's needs have been met.

The third one, I've been around-and-around-and-around with my DD's school over. She needs a teacher. She also doesn't always know what she needs, she just knows that it's "wrong" when she doesn't have those needs met. That doesn't mean for one second that she is not HG+. No "NT" student can truly learn-- and retain-- a full year of mathematics in just 2 or 3 days. But she needs a teacher. Not YouTube, not Khan, not another 'workbook.'

IMO, some truths are self-evident:

Autodidactic =/= gifted.

(Global) avid interest and cooperation =/= gifted.

Gifted students may look that way, particularly when they are interested in a subject-- but they don't necessarily have those things as core traits. My DD is often quite a difficult student for teachers because of her rate of learning-- and her lack of cooperation with instruction over material she knows-- not to mention her disproportionate responses to constructive criticism due to her perfectionism. She's amazing all around, and I do not always mean that in a positive manner. She needs teachers who pay attention to her-- and who won't back down when she puffs up like a porcupine.

Gifted children can do things that NT ones cannot. A child that spontaneously displays thinking, reasoning, or understanding which is not developmentally "possible" is gifted. Full stop. Do not write that off or rationalize it as a "fluke." It doesn't matter that s/he doesn't do it all the time, or that s/he won't do it on command (what? like a trained seal??). You cannot train a child to do things that his/her cognitive development won't support.

I'd think that experienced people in education would recognize this and respond appropriately-- but you'd never know it from talking to (or advocating with) educators.

This thread is such an excellent source for parent advocacy!

Yes! Especially the bolded text.

Thanks for the several responses, which are interesting and thought-provoking. Keep them coming.

Some of you who participate in other Brand X online communities have noticed that I have asked the same questions in those. I will compile and digest and respond to your kind comments, jointly with responding to comments from elsewhere, in a while.

Myth:

All gifted kids need is to be kept challenged and learning in order to fulfill their needs.

Truth:

The social / emotional needs of gifted children are often just as great if not a greater challenge than meeting their academic needs and these social / emotional needs are over looked in a majority of even gifted programs.

Old Dad-- I'd add that meeting them can be far more complicated, too. It's very much harder for parents to "afterschool" those needs than academic ones.

This kind of follows Old Dad and Howler Karma,
Myth: Parenting/teaching a gifted child must be easier because they are so smart and advanced and don't have any problems.

Reality: Parenting and teaching gifted children is really hard! None of the conventional wisdom/parenting books work the same for them. They can be exhausting, enfuriating, confusing, but parents often have little social support for this job because others don't understand and we sound to them like we are bragging when we are actually venting or seeking support. For the kids, it means that most adults as well as their peers don't understand them. Asynchrony, overexciteabilities, much less any twice exceptional conditions are a mine field that we as families negotiate on a daily basis. Except there is no map and everyone else walks by without even noticing the mines.

How about this one?

Myth: "Gifted kid" means that Little Johnny wrote a symphony when he was 4 or that Little Janey wrote a novel when she was 3.

Reality: Giftedness is not defined by its extremes.

That's about what I said in http://giftedissues.davidsongifted....t_Should_Everyone_Know_a.html#Post161775 .

Quit precisely.

I wonder if this is some sort of Eliza-bot that reposts into a thread using a word swap against an existing post. The new here post was suspiciously generic.

... may I add another unfortunate truth: the educational institutions, not the mother and father, mainly receive credit for the student's achievements. Some gifted programs consist of tracking what students do outside of school, not of providing an appropriate in-school experience.

It's a joke. No, seriously, you will be lucky if you end up with a self-motivated, high-achieving child out of anything other than a stand-alone gifted school. Most gifted students languish in the public schools, if they don't drop out. The public schools don't know the difference between high achievers and gifted students. Nor do they care. Sad, but true.

I was out of town for work as the last kind reply came in here. I hope to digest all these replies, along with replies received from some other online communities, into an outline of the state of popular understanding among parents and among school officials of current gifted education research.

Further replies would be delightful. Thanks.

Our school has recently moved toward this model.

Unless they are one and the same.

Meaning the educational institution and the parents.

I think I have agreed with everything said on this thread, both truths and myths!

Not all gifted are alike! What you might think looks like gifted, may not be, and what you think looks like ADHD/ADD, OCD, ODD, ASD, etc. may actually be gifted.

Gifted children need and deserve to have their needs met in school, just the same as a child that is struggling at the other end of the bell curve. It shouldn't be completely up to the parents, and parents shouldn't be forced to homeschool to accomplish this either. (not saying everyone that homeschools is forced to do so - just wanted to clarify)

"No Child Left Behind" should have included stronger wording for gifted children. It should have explained no gifted child should be left behind to wallow in the mire.

Have all of the myths mentioned by Webb in this youtube video been posted to this thread? He shows a slide at about 00:35 - 01:38 with a list of myths based on Terman, and discusses several (link- )... some of which relate to gifted kids who are academically misplaced.

That is so depressing. There is no such thing as a gifted school or even a gifted class here. When they switch to intermediate school at 11 or so there is an extension class but it is not really aimed at gifted more high achievers and it is really a bit late. By here I don't mean just locally I mean in the entire country.

I think there is a greater understanding that gifted comes in a wide variety of levels and differentiated talent but there is little implementation strategy.

A framework to really define gifted and any child's strengths and weaknesses to create an optimized learning plan would be ideal. Having money for that is probably not in anyone's budget. But with all the Internet based learning systems, so many tests that allow some identification, it would be great if frameworks could be developed so that parents could create what works for their child. But I think it will be the parent's responsibility for the next decade.

I do not have a problem with that. It seems that the current generation of parents is really big on farming out parental responsibility. Which is why Madeline Levine sells so many books.

Gifted students, by and large, do NOT respond well to "Tiger" parenting/teaching methods.


They are likely to become either:

a) damaged emotionally as the stimulus increases in intensity (because the subject hasn't yet responded "appropriately" with increased performance or compliance),

b) profoundly oppositional.



Treating cheetahs like border collies is BAD, bad news. It's probably not really good for either group (because only the most extraordinary of the border collies can run anything like a cheetah), but it's completely toxic to the former.

They can't respond the way that they are "supposed" to, anymore than an autistic child can respond "normally" to an undifferentiated setting.

I found this to be so true with ds11. Though ds24 was also gifted, and didn't mind doing worksheets and extra things on the side, ds11 wanted no part of any of that nonsense. He will work for hours on something he enjoys (writing, building, chemistry, minecraft) but he absolutely shuts down if I increase the demand with things he doesn't like so much like busywork.

Yep. Although actually my older tested son can be worked with ds4 becomes extremely unco-operative the minute he suspects you are trying to teach him. He will learn things in his own way in his own time thank you very much. His own way seems to be to refuse to try then suddenly be able to do it.

I'd almost prefer DD would be defiant or uncooperative. Her main tactic these days is to get it done as fast as she can so she can move onto her preferred activity but she sure lets it be known that work asked of her was beneath her. I think she is becoming that child that grates on teachers' nerves.

This quiz by Carol Bainbridge quickly and successfully identifies gifted myths, and provides great summary answers... all in a fun format: How well do you know gifted kids?

Update on this - the extension class will cease to exist at the end of this year. NONE of the gifted kids I know got into it.

For months, Southern New Hampshire University (SNHU) has been airing a TV commercial which asserts:
This assertion is incorrect.
Claiming that talent is equally distributed invalidates "gifted" persons; it denies the existence of individuals with an abundance (overabundance?) of native talent. Setting educational policy and taking actions based on the false premise of equal distribution of talent is damaging to "gifted" persons whose academic needs are different from the majority.

Given that "gifted" persons are more at risk for dropping out, and given that SNHU may be considered a second chance at an education for non-traditional students, it appears:
1- ...likely that SNHU's belief about equal distribution of talent may further under-serve marginalized "gifted" persons in their school(s),
2- ...unfortunate that SNHU's assertion of their belief about equal distribution of talent as fact may have negative impacts to other "gifted" persons, to the extent that the general population buys into SNHU's statement heard repeatedly on TV,
3- ...reasonable that taking a different approach (an acknowledgement and affirmation of varying degrees of "talent") may help a larger number of marginalized "gifted" persons resume and complete their studies.

Unfortunately, the link in the quoted post above /\ is no longer active, and does not appear to have been archived on the WayBackMachine, Internet Archive.

Several articles by Carol Bainbridge are now found on Very Well Family, including this myth-busting article about "fixing" gifted kids, which describes that many normal "gifted" behaviors are unfortunately treated as pathology:
Pathologizing Normal Gifted Behavior

“Just like cocaine?” I don’t think so. Certainly we want children to be diagnosed accurately and not misdiagnosed with something they do not have. But how much of a problem is this, really? Is there data?

@ChasingTwo - many who read that article may have similar questions to those you expressed. There are several schedules of Class II drugs posted online and readily accessible.
For example, Drugs.com > Reference > CSA Schedules > Schedule 2 (II) Drugs, a list which includes both ritalin and 3 forms of cocaine.

You may want to check the works related to "Misdiagnosis and Dual Diagnoses" on the SENG website.
Also:
1) SENG initiative - https://www.sengifted.org/misdiagnosis-initiative
2) SENG articles - https://www.sengifted.org/allarticles/categories/misdiagnosis
3) Book, 2nd edition (2016) - https://www.amazon.com/Misdiagnosis-Diagnoses-Gifted-Children-Adults/dp/1935067435

As a prescriber of schedule two narcotics, I consider the comparison of cocaine to Ritalin *in this article* sensationalism. For example, marijuana and heroin are both schedule one narcotics, but surely you would agree that if someone said marijuana was “just like heroin,” this would be laughable. It may be argued that the author meant “just like” only in reference to the schedule, which taken literally, may be true. But the sentiment certainly meant to draw parallels and insinuate danger in a sensational way. I think this attitude is more harmful than helpful from a public health perspective.

Additionally, I have read Webb’s book above and have similar concerns.

And I’m still looking for data on the prevalence of this misdiagnosis issue. I don’t see the answer in any of the SENG links, but maybe I am overlooking something. I am also interested in how it compares to the problem of lack of access to a needed diagnosis (for any number of reasons). Which is worse? And which is more frequent?

You may wish to contact the article's author with a constructive explanation of your concerns, and any suggested re-wording which you believe may be more beneficial?

Meanwhile, as a casual observer I would say that the point of the article was to raise awareness among those in the target audience: parents of gifted children, a relatively small and overlooked percentage of the population, so they may ask questions, do their research, have conversations with their children's medical providers, and together make informed decisions. The article is not lobbying for public health policy or giving medical advice. It is not published in a medical journal.

Possibly you are missing the point of the thread, and the point of this article within the thread, and are therefore veering off-topic.

You may wish to contact SENG and the book's co-authors to inquire of their research data and sample size(s)?

I doubt that information would be presented in this Gifted Issues Discussion Forum, but rather may be a subject for research.

For any of the posts on this thread, one could similarly ask, or demand to know, how prevalent any particular negative experience may be... how frequently it occurs... what the likelihood of occurrence is. But for purposes of this forum, it may be enough for parents to be aware of and prepared for any of the cautionary tales in the various posts in this discussion thread; this is a crowd-sourced sampling of negative experiences that children and families have encountered, a collection of anecdotal evidence, not empirical evidence.

The entire sentence says this: "Ritalin is a class 2 drug, which means it is a narcotic, just like cocaine."

The phrase "just like cocaine" is referring to Ritalin's status as a schedule II drug. There is an implied "is." As in "Ritalin is a class 2 drug, which means it is a narcotic, just like cocaine is."

“ Possibly you are missing the point of the thread, and the point of this article within the thread, and are therefore veering off-topic.”

In my opinion, I do not believe that pointing out what appears to be bias or misinformation is equivalent to veering off-topic. In fact, it seems the responsible thing to do if the goal is to raise awareness among parents of gifted children. Thank you for providing the format for such a discussion.

Kai, I addressed your concern in my prior post. We appear to interpret the article’s tone and goals differently.

Well said, Kai. Thank you.

What bias or misinformation, ChasingTwo...?

Is it bias to alert parents of gifted children of the potential for some to participate in pathologizing giftedness...
and that misdiagnosis that may lead to unnecessary Rx of schedule 2 narcotics...?

As a reader of this article, I believe that everyone involved with the gifted should be aware of this.
If you contact the article author, suggesting points to rewrite, please do share the resulting updated article with us.

I wish you all the best with your quest to learn more about how frequently misdiagnosis occurs, as compared with how frequently a diagnosis is missed, and which error has greater impact.

Thanks for your contributions Indigo. I think the potential to pathologize giftedness is a very important issue.

When DS was very young, he would get very engrossed in his own activities which were mainly centred on studying the cause & effects of things. At age 3-4, he attended a child care centre where he would often ignore their activities to continue his own. The staff at the centre strongly urged us to have him assessed for ADHD, hearing deficits etc (even to the point of suggesting we were neglectful parents), but DH and I knew from our much broader experience of him that it was his giftedness driving his behaviour and not any deficits preventing him from ‘normal’ interactions. Eventually, the psychologist who assessed his IQ at 4 described his non verbal reasoning as ‘a-ma-zing’ (he ceilinged on the SBV) and when he started school, he emerged as a social leader.

If you are prescribing dilaudid and oxycontin, then you are aware that for more than a decade, doctors were prescribing oxy for simple back aches to deal with symptoms. Not any real diagnosis. And same with Ritallin. There were stories of 90% of kids in some towns being on Ritallin in the early 2000s. That is a ridiculous.

Many on here have anecdotal stories that could line up with the diagnosis of attention deficit. I would recommend to anyone to look at alternatives. I have said many times gifted is not one size fits all. You find in this forums a bunch of stories and find stuff that may or may not work for you. My kid took a long and winding road through middle school that sometimes made me question how gifted she was, could she focus? It was just her path. Now 11th grade, focused, knows what she wants. 5.0 average last year, math and chemistry and computer science are top scores. She did a self study last year and took the AP Chinese exam. Did well. Created an app and a business plan. To put kids on some drugs before their brains are fully developed is not a greatidea in my opinion. Alternatively, I invest in other stuff. She wanted to dive to do marine research, I made it happen. Providing outlets is better, in my opinion.

It is unlikely that any typical public school will ever have the resources, interest, or people, to put together a really good program for the gifted.

Don't believe me? Do the math on the number of gifted students in a typical school. Then do the math on the number of equally gifted teachers who could keep up with them.

They can put together decent programs for the 125s, but just about nobody will have a decent program for a 150 or above, nor could they, even if they wanted to. The reason is the same as the reason you won't find me on the basketball court shutting down LeBron James -- simple lack of ability.

Reviving this old thread, whose original post was made a decade ago, to add a link to a blog post listed among the Tweets from @DavidsonGifted:

First, do no harm: Nine tactics that teachers of gifted students should avoid
by Dr. Gail Post
April 12, 2023
Gifted Challenges

link - https://giftedchallenges.blogspot.com/2023/04/first-do-no-harm-nine-tactics-that.html

This thread is such an excellent source for parent advocacy!

More on advocacy in this thread: https://giftedissues.davidsongifted...as-a-non-newtonian-fluid.html#Post183916