Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums Age or Ability Specific Forums Academic "red shirting" - are they really gifted?

I also feel kind of bad if I let DD play with starfall. We also have not done Leapfrog stuff as I'm not huge fan of DVDs, and if she watches something I prefer it not to teach her to read or count, I wish her to enjoy children's culture. Not saying there is anything wrong with Leapfrog but we have no time for it as I work fulltime and she goes to daycare.

I think it is just funny to think that if you would teach your child to read by yourself it would be worse than Starfall or Leapfrog, I would prefer the one on one parent time over computers or DVDs anyday

I don't see how the redshirting could be a big problem. I was always youngest in my class with late December birthday. I was also tiny and immature and the kids that were year older, big and mature maybe did better socially but not academically. They might have made it bit better during first few years than later but the difference was never anything huge that should make any difference in gifted placements.

I am actually pretty embarrassed about it because when I discovered starfall, I was just looking for a kids' website that would be interesting to DD, easy to navigate, and not too flashy/commercially/noisy. I seriously let her play on starfall for a year before it really occurred to me that it was designed to teach kids to read. I too prefer one-on-one time to computer time, but DD really wanted something she could do on the computer by herself, and starfall isn't horrible, like many preschool sites.

I guess the difference is that I wasn't trying to teach her to read (obviously). And, honestly, she gave lost interest months before she started sounding words out, so I'm not sure how much influence it had. It just drives me nuts because I'll say something to my mom about how DD taught herself to read, and she'll say, "No, she played that computer game."

Not that it really matters. DD was in charge of her own learning, and that is what is important to me.

We have found that being a lot older, combined with the type of parents who made that choice based upon giving their kids an edge, does make some degree of a difference in terms of GT placement in school. While the decision re GT labels isn't technically made until the end of 3rd grade here, the teachers do start recommending kids for GT watch by 1st grade and track them accordingly in class. The kids who weren't identified as being academicially ahead in the first year or two aren't given any enrichment or taught anything above grade level, so they are less likely to wind up in the GT placement which is based a lot upon prior placement and achievement scores in school.

Secondly, a couple of the kids in dd#2's GT reading class were redshirted to a significant extent by their parents (11 y/o 4th graders as compared to dd who isn't 9 yet) and have continued to be parented a bit differently to give them an edge. For instance, years of outside tutoring, Kumon, Sylvan, etc. along with being 1.5 yrs older, which does seem to make some difference in terms of achievement. Anecdotally, one of the moms told me that "you know, you can buy the CogAT online..." which has also left me wondering if some of these kids may have been prepped with answers to that test ahead of time to give them further chance of getting into GT classes.

I won't post where in that I wouldn't want to encourage that type of behavior, but I was concerned enough by that comment that I looked and, lo and behold, you can buy the actual test online.

What I'm getting at is that, if the reason a child was started in school later than s/he was eligible to start was due to really pushy parents and a desire to have the child appear better (academically, in sports or whatever) than the other kids, that type of mentality doesn't likely change. With a parenting mentality like that, it can make for a child who is hothoused into appearing to belong in a GT class.

I try to remind myself that someone else's decision to hothouse doesn't change who my children are. On that level, it doesn't really matter to me what others do (except that it makes me feel bad for the hothoused child).

A positive, I suppose, could be that my children (who are in typical grade for age) have peers a year older--instant placement with older peers! Does that count as acceleration? (Just kiddin' folks) LOL...

I think the primary reason that it chafes, is that so many of us have had our attempts to explain/get help for our DCs met with suspicion in school, and when DD9 is compared to redshirted DD10, it is sometimes more difficult for the school to recognize learning differences.

In our district there has been a lot of discussion about identification and programming. The question has been raised as to why a bright, high acheiving child who is not gifted should not be able to participate in the same types of learning opportunities as those given to gifted students (or, in the case of our school, *theoretical* opportunities ). For instance, should there be a litmus test to enter honors sections in high school? Or should anyone wanting to take it on, be able to take it on? After all, they would be incurring the risk of a lower grade if they are actually not up to the challenge. For the most part, I like this generalized access. However, I think that there is a danger too, because as teachers we need to let assessment and learning drive instruction. If a group becomes overly weighted with bright, but not gifted students, and therefore a majority of students are not able to meet the initially high bar set for pace and product, then gifted students may once again find themselves in classes that are moving to slowly and demanding too little.

The discussion about Leapfrog and Starfall reminds me of a revelation I had recently. My mother always claimed that I "taught myself how to read" when I was three. She remembers me spontaneously picking up a newspaper, saying "I know how to read now," and then reading the newspaper out loud to her.

A little while ago (last year, perhaps) I was flipping the channels, and on PBS I saw a tribute to the 70s show "The Electric Company". I didn't consciously remember the show, but I was amazed to find myself singing along to every song on that show. The character would say one thing and I instantly knew how the second character was going to respond.

Amazed, I called my mom and asked her about the show. She recalled that when I was three she was sick with her pregnancy and slept on the couch every afternoon after parking me in front of PBS.

So, I didn't teach myself how to read-- The Electric Company taught me!

So, does that mean I was "Hot Housed"? No, benignly neglected is more the truth. Even if Electric Company did teach me how to read, that doesn't discount the fact that I was a gifted reader.

What does hothoused mean?

http://giftedkids.about.com/od/glossary/g/hothouse.htm

Think of the parents from Parenthood. A common mis-perception is that we hot house our children.

JB

O.K. my youngest of three is nearly 5 now, but until I started looking at this site I hadn't ever heard of Starfall. I guess I'm just out of the picture on the latest stuff out there.

I don't believe that allowing a child to play with an educational game or watch educational TV is hothousing. I do believe that forcing a child who is otherwise not interested to do the same would come closer to that definition.

I was such a clueless parent. I had no idea that GT testing in CA schools was a multiple choice test and that the kids were scored relative to other kids in the same grade, and not their age peers. When I was a kid, CA sent a psychologist to my house to administer the SBLM; my score was divided by my age. It never occurred to me that the state had switched to something much cheaper, and unfair in a different way.

I blogged about it ad nauseum in Implications of Academic Redshirting Implications of Academic Redshirting. The comments I received are very interesting.
http://badmomgoodmom.blogspot.com/2009/07/red-shirt-kindergarten.html