Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums General Discussion Old news that's new to me: Justin Chapman

Okay, wrong test, but the point still remains.

There is also the possibility that people hothouse high-MG into the HG+ category, as well. So perhaps the hothousing thing is a less pathological version of what Chapman's mother did.

But IMO, a serious side-effect of the problem is that IQ coaching can populate gifted programs with kids who aren't gifted and also skew perceptions of giftedness among teachers. They're told that the kids in the program tested as gifted, and it's reasonable for them to believe this. If many or most of the kids are very bright but not gifted, it makes things harder for the ones who really are gifted. And of course, all the prepping is presumably inflating the numbers of kids who qualify for these programs, forcing NYC schools to resort to lotteries and other methods of admitting kids, which, again, makes admissions that much harder for the kids who need the programs the most (and for whom the programs were ostensibly designed).

It seems incredibly cruel to the child to be pushed so aggressively. Why any parent would want to make their child look more gifted than they naturally are is a total mystery to me. The underlying message is, "You are unlovable just the way you are." That breaks my heart!

Now, on the finer point of "what is following a child's lead", I think there are many shades of gray. The tension between wanting to support your child's natural inclination for learning and trying not to have these interests crowd out simpler, more age-typical interests presents a real challenge. One the one hand, your child is ravenous for information. But, on the other hand, you know that your child needs exercise, free play, time to muck around outside, etc. In what instances do you say yes to the book/experiment/study, and in which ones do you insist on splashing around in puddles? Knowing what is in the best interests of your child can be difficult to gauge even for the most well-intentioned parents.

For instance, did my son wake up one day and say, "I want to watch the DARPA challenges"? No, but he has an innate fascination with robotics, and I had a hunch that the new generation of military humanoid robots would tickle his fancy. If he gets too hung up on talking about Petman and Atlas, I unilaterally decide we need a park break (acting out imaginary scenarios with the aforementioned robots as characters is copacetic in downtime.)

I had DS7 tested in a very competitive city with brutal competition for local gifted programs. His tester came very highly recommended by a natonal expert in gifted ed (who happens to be a neighbor). Anyway, when I had DS7 tested I knew nothing about the craziness surrounding gifted admissions. After his testing was done, the tester said to me, "Well it's clear that you didn't cheat!" (Something along those lines.) I didn't know what she was referencing. She then explained that she REGULARLY gets parents who have prepped their kids and cheat. I was shocked (and very naive!)

So very sad.

If you are in NYC, and the choices are
(1) get your 120-IQ child into the 130-IQ threshold public school gifted program with some preparation
(2) pay $40K annually for private school
(3) put your 120-IQ child in a public school where the average IQ is maybe 90

the appeal of option (1) is apparent. And even (2) may require preparation -- the elite private schools are both selective and expensive.

For me getting my kids tested was to answer a question and put my mind to rest. Prepping (aka cheating) would have prevented both.

I stand by my original comment.

To your NYC-specific example, you're presenting only a subset of options. Nowhere on your list are advocacy, moving to a district where the mean is closer to your child's ability, afterschooling, a less expensive private school, partial homeschooling, homeschooling, virtual schooling, alternative schools, starting a school, tutors, or teaching cooperatives.

A 120 student will probably find the class with truly 130+ students too challenging, and it is unfair to all involved to force children into molds where they don't belong or to dilute standards for those with legitimate gifted needs. Also, I'm troubled by the doublespeak such parents would be teaching their children--"cheating is wrong, with the exception of the multitude of parentally-approved situations where cheating has a materially positive effect on your lifestyle." It's not only unethical, it coveys a misplaced disapproval of the child at a fundamental level.

The real solution, of course, is to demand that schools offer meaningful ability grouping to all students, and for parents to lovingly accept their children as they are. I appreciate that this isn't as expedient as jumping the queue and is a long-term strategy.

To lend some credibility to my statement, we'll be doing a combination of homeschooling, virtual schooling, and starting a school with DS. Our public congregated gifted program is being mainstreamed, so we can no longer rely on our tax dollars actually benefiting our family directly, and local private options are a poor fit for gifties before middle school.

"mainstreamed"?

Whether preparation is "cheating" depends on the nature of the preparation. I'm not advocating bribing someone to get the test questions in advance. But I don't think buying a $10 book Testing for Kindergarten, which the publisher must have vetted for not revealing proprietary information, is cheating. I got the book out of curiosity and thought the activities mentioned were interesting. Actually, such books probably level the playing field -- you can bet the expensive NYC pre-schools are aware of the kindergarten entrance tests.