Encouraging "gifted" students to branch out rather than just go up

Parents Forum
241

“And why should kids be bored in school for years on end?”

They shouldn’t be bored but again, a public school system can only do so much wrt honors, AP classes to challenge them. And I think the issue of gifted children being bored in every class from KG to 12th grade is overblown, if most of students are in the 90-110 IQ, that’s who the public schools have to serve. And are these kids saying they’re bored with every class including electives or are the parents think they’re bored because they think their kid will understand black holes like Hawking.

242

“Yes as they grow older. But there are plenty out there who are board in EVERY subject in kindergarten.”

Define plenty - because 1000 out of 15M is not, definitely not for a public school to offer individualized instruction for. The best you will get is for the to be with other capable students in honors or accelerated classes, starting in middle school. Other than that, Little Einstein or Little Jefferson will have to participate in circle time with the others.

243

@theloniusmonk

There will be no way for a public school, or even private schools that serve gifted population would be able to help 1000 out of 15M during their elementary school years. I don’t see any solution except homeschooling for 8 years old kids who can write like adult and/or can explain Schrodinger’s equation.

But 1~2 in 100 can be bored in every subject in kindergarten and grade acceleration might be helpful for them at early grades.

There are enough kindergartners who can already read and add that some schools raise entire grade’s curriculum by 1~2 years.

244

S2’s middle school humanities HG program did a fairly good job of challenging the kids. Much of sixth grade was on dystopian literature, which they tied into world history. Lots of Shakespeare in 7th grade. Research papers on topics of personal interest. National History Day. They also had media classes, so there was a lot of video production, drama productions, web stuff. Teachers included philosophy, anthropology, government and lots of history. There were a couple of teachers who all the kids just glommed on to. They were intense, committed, innovative and high-energy. S had a group of 5-6 buddies (the “history boys”) who were all about military history and politics. We had lots of all-night Risk parties. :slight_smile: It was all wide-ranging, but deep.

His IB program leaned heavily towards the English, FL, history and social science ends of the curriculum, which worked for him.

I always had teachers who gave me alternative books to read and sent me off to do independent study (math, social studies, reading, writing). I also sat in class and embroidered! (My eighth grade GT history class had us doing projects instead of papers so I learned about historical embroidery and made a colonial-era sample. I still have it.) Most of my childhood experience with GT accommodations was independent study, whether there was a GT program or not. I lived in my brain, but it was isolating.

Our state had “Gifted Summer Centers” (using the term loosely; no scores or grades required – they were sorting for kids who had an active interest in the subject area) which were one-week, sleep-away, focused subject-area programs that were largely outdoors and hands-on. S2 went to one that visited Antietam and other Civil War sites, and then came back to the camp and did tabletop battle simulations. He was also interested in environmental science and spent a couple of summers planting bay grasses & seeding oysters through the flagship’s research center on the bay, as well as canoeing through historic parts of our state (with some environmental stuff as well). He also did digs through the county archaeology department for several summers, as a camper and later as a counselor. S2 loved these programs. Incredibly, the cost was less than most of the local day camps.

This kind of stuff worked much better than summer STEM camps did for S1, who was frustrated at the pace and preferred to learn programming languages at home. He did one summer math program in HS, which was life-changing for him. He was/is also an avid, intense reader. He needed reading accommodations well before math. His desire to balance the math/CS part of his brain with the humanities was a significant reason he chose his college over the more “obvious” choice, given his interests. Around junior/senior year of HS, he became interested in being less “pointy” and took steps to broaden his horizons.

245

@theloniusmonk

“I could understand a few kids, that’s it though, a few kids, being bored in middle school in every class, but once you hit a class like APUSH or APLAC where you have to put in hours even if you’re an Einstenian genius, you’re not bored.”

Anecdotally, I know a only highly gifted high schooler who can hit APUSH without putting in hours because the kid can memorize the entire exam period’s random names and dates overnight without sweating. Some people can memorize a dozen pages word by word within couple of hours and retain that for days, at least one person I know could do that when he was a teen. I also know some profoundly gifted kids who can do AP Calc without putting in hours because the concepts come natural to them without practices. What is APLAC?

I agree that much fewer kids can do both APUSH and AP Calc without putting in hours, though I think you don’t have to be Eisenstein genius.

246

Right – but finding a way to validate subject mastery and moving a kid on when they’ve got it is really what is being asked here. There are a myriad of ways to do that. It doesn’t have to be a STANDARDIZED test score. But if a kid can pass the next quiz or do well on the course final before the unit starts (or even partway through the year), that should enough to move them on if they want to progress.

Technology will be the great equalizer – finding ways to provide material and learning in a more computer based setting WITHIN a school to allow students to do more work at their own level is where we will be someday. Students should still go to school, and interact with others on some components of their education (because I agree that social skills and working with others is important, and some components of learning benefit from a group setting and discussion).

247

One issue with profoundly gifted kids is that they often also have other issues. It’s as if the brain chemistry that affects their IQ so profoundly also triggers mental illnesses.

I have a profoundly gifted son who had a tough time in high school, suffered a nervous breakdown as a freshman in college, did some courses at our local state U but dropped out. He may never go back.

The son of a good friend of ours is profoundly gifted (was reading/discussing Carlyle in middle school) who dropped out of high school… he’s now enrolled in an online alternative. Who knows what his college future looks like.

Be glad your child is just above average. There are many of us who would trade a couple dozen IQ points for a kiddo who can function in this world…

248

@katliamom I am sorry to hear that.

Many people including I believe that somewhere around iq130 (excuse me for generalization) are best suited to become an academic high achiever. Though they might also suffer in early grade for boredom, the damage is much less, and they are smart enough to be able to handle all high school curriculum rather easily, with much less learning disabilities.

Above that, the additional couple dozen iq very often come with other characteristics that are, in the modern academics system, considered as learning disabilities and even mental illnesses although some of them could still be hugely advantageous at certain learning and working environment. (e.g. perfectionist who couldn’t distribute studying time over different subjects while in school, but could blossom at a school with block scheduling and later became a perfect high level aircraft mechanic)

The good news is that there are plenty hope for kids like like your son to have a very happy and successful life with or without college.

249

“The good news is that there are plenty hope for kids like like your son to have a very happy and successful life with or without college.”

@SculptorDad, true that! My son is on his own, he lives with a bunch of buddies (really good people) and he has a job – not a great job but at this point in his life it meets his needs – he’s liked there and he likes being needed. He has friends. He snowboards (a major stress reliever, plus being outdoors is good for us all) he even arranged and paid for a 2-week trip in the PNW last summer. He’s happy. That’s an accomplishment, for him, and I’m duly proud.

To bring this back to the topic at hand – I think that’s what the teacher in OP’s post was talking about. Life is so much more than academic progress. Not every gifted kiddo should be moved up. Educators know plenty of “geniuses” who are now sleeping under bridges.

250

@apprenticeprof, @Data10, @theloniusmonk et al, arguing that it’s only those who are „really gifted“ who need anything above grade level, and those who are „really gifted“ must be at the level of Einstein, and there can‘t possibly be more than 1 or 3 kids in a million like that, and everyone else can’t really be bored, or not really in every subject, must get with the program, and if they are a little bored, well, there are worse things and they can learn valuable life lessons about how to get along with others and how to be humble while sitting there being bored…well. We have all read the OP.

If you look, just for example. at the OECD PISA surveys, even countries like Finland, with homogeneous societies and inclusive school systems and low achievement gaps between the 5th and the 95th percentiles of students at the age of 15 (meaning kids with serious learning disabilities on the hand and the academically gifted on the other aren’t even included) there is still a gap of SEVEN years.

This is not a gap exacerbated by poverty or a lack of early childhood education or immigration or racial discrimination or residential segregation or uneven school and teacher quality because none of these problems really exist in Finland. This is what you get naturally, under near perfect conditions, with equity the overarching value in your system and society.

Add in the kids below the 5th percentile and above the 95th. Add in the problems of a heterogenous society.

Even if you insist the gap can’t be that wide already in elementary school, there must be at least 5 years between the 5th and the 95th percentile in the statistically normal classroom. So, maybe 10 kids challenged and engaged at grade level, maybe 7 who could work at least 1 grade level ahead, 2 of which probably 2 could work 2 grade levels ahead. Another 5 kids who are struggling and would be comfortable at a grade level below, 2 who are 2 grade levels behind and who really should have the constant attention of a support teacher. Add in kids below the 5th and above the 95th percentile.

Add in the one kid that, in every other statistically normal classroom, tests in the top 2 % of intelligence, who Is 3 grade levels ahead or more.

Yes, this kid is bored in every single academic subject, and without acceleration, will remain so until 7th or 8th grade. (They may enjoy PE or arts and Crafts, whatever). Yes, this kid should be at least skipped.

I am not pulling these numbers out of my head, there was a study recently that in American classrooms, 40 % of kids could work at least one grade level ahead maths and 30% of kids could work a grade level ahead in language arts. (I wish I could find it, will provide the link if I do.)

Not all of these kids should be skipped, of course, and classroom differentiation, pull outs and push ins can probably serve the need of the +1 and +2 kids (and the -1and -2 kids) adequately, particularly as, due to residential and educational education, by far not every classroom will be statistically normal - in a high SES area, you may have whole classes working a year ahead or so, which again works well for the majority of kids in that particular classroom.

None of which is enough for the +3 and more Kids. 2% of the cohort. One in every other classroom, several per year in a regularly sized school.

We are not talking about 1 in a million. If we were, I agree we’d have nothing to talk about.

251

@theloniusmonk, you wrote

„I assert again there may be one or two people per the 15M or whatever number that could have the 200 IQ of Einstein and Jefferson and be able to understand government theory and physics as well as those two. And I agree that a public school is not going to serve them well.“
and
„And are these kids saying they’re bored with every class including electives or are the parents think they’re bored because they think their kid will understand black holes like Hawking.“

I am beginning to wonder what kind of public school you went to if you cannot conceive of the rather wide field between teaching government theory or physics to the level of understanding of Jefferson or Einstein or black holes to the level of understanding of Hawking and teaching grade level content. No one is suggesting teaching Einatein level physics to a first grader. But, maybe, let that first grader learn some math they can’t do already so they LEARN? Math? Which is kind of what they‘re going to school, or, specifically, math class, to do in the first place? You actually can’t learn what you can already do so why not learn the next step, the next unit, even though someone has arbitrarily labelled it „third grade math“ in a particular geographical area of the world?

252

Certainly it is true sometimes. But sometimes these kids are just “odd ducks” because their interests are divergent from their peers (and heck, from the population in general). My kid was deeply engrossed in the French Revolution, Lovecraft, and Holmes (books, not movies or TV) in middle school. A. Lincoln in first grade. Philosophy as it related to science in HS. I don’t know very many adults (a few) who share those interests, especially not to the depth she does. Making conversation is sometimes hard for her with anyone. I certainly enjoy her immensely, but it is partly because I’ve been willing to learn about her pursuits/passions. Not everyone wants to do that. :slight_smile:

253

@blossom, you wrote:

„Using test scores as the only criterion for advanced educational opportunities is both a perverse use of scores (they aren’t designed to do what you think they do) AND make for terrible public policy.“

I am not sure what you are calling „advanced educational opportunities“ and why public policy comes into it. I am pretty sure intparent is talking about testing in the sense of, you know, finding out what a particular kid can already do to understand what that particular kid could learn next, in a particular school and classroom. In other words, a mastery concept, with regular assessment.

It makes sense to let a kid that has shown mastery of 2nd grade concepts and the ability the master 3rd grade concepts, learn third grade concepts. If you haven’t shown mastery of second grade concepts, work on 2nd grade concepts.

„Advanced“ in relation to what? What someone else, somewhere else, is learning right now?

Every next step should be an „advanced educational opportunity“ in relation to the step you’ve mastered before. And public policy should be that every kid deserves a next step, whether you learn at grade level, two years below or two years ahead.

254

„One issue with profoundly gifted kids is that they often also have other issues. It’s as if the brain chemistry that affects their IQ so profoundly also triggers mental illnesses.“

The question is why you’d want to add the problems of stultification and intellectual isolation to the issues these kids have already.

@katliamom, I do know what you are talking about and I sympathise. I have kids who have been struggling the struggle since they were born. Mental health is a huge priority at our house, definitely way above academics. Only they are sometimes hard to keep separate with kids like this.

255

In many districts, some version of an IQ test is considered the be-all and end-all of “gifted” designation.

It’s bad public policy because several studies have shown a marked racial imbalance in school systems which use these types of tests, AND the tests are very good at capturing some types of giftedness but are lousy at others.

Mastery tests are less controversial and have fewer problems but they are more expensive to design and administer- and thus, frequently fail to do what they should do. It’s easier for a school system to use a testing mechanism that already exists and is cheap to score than to develop one which is targeted to the actual, differentiated learning going on in a particular classroom.

My son (who eventually was a math major from MIT) didn’t make the “cut off” from the mastery test administered in the 7th grade to get into the highest level math class at his school. None of the kids who were in that top class in his year went on to do anything remotely quantitative (as the principal recently told me in a rare moment of “mistakes we probably made with your kids way back when”). Water under the bridge. But the mastery tests captured one thing- and advanced a handful of kids into accelerated math- and didn’t capture other things (my kid’s extreme love for math and abstract thinking, analysis, etc. even though he may have missed a calculation on a fraction or ignored a chunk of the test he found boring). And there were a few other very talented “math nerds” who have gone on to do extraordinary things in careers involving math and numbers who were also not “accelerated” because the mastery test “proved” they weren’t ready. (do you really think a kid who goes on to get a PhD from Cal Tech in Aero/Astro would have had trouble in a 7th grade accelerated math class? But the parents didn’t push, and of course, the kid did just fine in life without being tracked “most rigorous”.)

I am leery of any gifted type scheme which relies on any single gate-keeping technique or strategy. Too easy to have the system fail, too easy to ignore kids who ARE gifted but don’t present in the standard manner, too easy to rely on bad metrics.

256

^ Mental health is a huge priority at our house, definitely way above academics.

And often intellectual stimulation through the right level of academics (or avoidance of boringly low level of academics) is necessary to support the mental health.

257

Tigerle: You are so insightful and hit the nail on the head. We are not talking about the 1 in a million kid. At least I am not as that person is going to be difficult to educate in any respect. What we are talking about is the top 5% or any number you choose. I know for a fact that one can be bored in ALL classes until you hit high school. So are my kids ( many years later). And we are talking about the appropriate education for all not narrowing and creating a specialized type of study. Though some of the criterion cited made me laugh. Yes, I think I can anaylze government a la Jefferson or understand black holes. There are many people in who are gifted
Skipping grades presents issues. Both my grandmother and mother skipped grades and went to college early. It was difficult for both. Socialization is an important part of school. Kids don’t want to be different to the extent that they are ostracized or remain outside the norm. Even if they are statistically not normal.
I don’t know what APUSH is, we don’t have gifted programs in our state, sadly. Also, many folks live in small school districts where their kids are the only ones who need the extra help. It’s a sad situation.

258

@renaissancedad wrote:
„But life is not a gifted classroom, so learning how to manage perfectionism, anxieties, sensory issues, intensity levels, frustrations, etc., to relate to others regardless of giftedness, and to develop skills to function in the “real world” can be at least as critical.“

Life is not a classroom, full stop. We do not expect typical kids to come in reading and writing, just because gifted kids can do it, and we should not expect gifted kids to have perfect self regulation because some other kids do.

There should be scaffolding for everyone, according to their needs.

I really loved my child’s preschool teachers when they unequivocally supported early entry even though they said there were issues with self regulation and frustration tolerance. They had realised that those issues were much better with the other kids about to start school and with the more structured activities they did, and much worse with age mates and free play. As one of the teachers observed, self regulation and frustration tolerance were things one could work on and and grow in in grade school just as well as in preschool, and keeping him behind with age mates would just add more frustration to deal with!

259

INt parent: I think people who have real interests and passions are misunderstood. One reason seems to be that very few people can listen well. They are so self absorbed and want to create some type of positioning when they speak. So that someone who is engrossed in a subject throws them. She’ll find people like her as she gets older. One of the things about intelligent people is, they can often learn new concepts and apply them to what they already knew to get some great results. I always encourage my kids to follow their passions. Some are strange some are not. I didn’t quite understand the explanation from my 13 year old about the market for quantum computers the other day but I tried. And I did learn something. I had some follow up questions which I asked. Then I asked more questions. Eventually, I will get it.

260

^ But life is not a gifted classroom

And life is not an institution, unless you are in a jail. Ironically jail is what the school is like for many aspects. Except that school doesn’t have to be like jail and the kids don’t have to be institutionalized.