<p>The controversy over the new testing program here in NYC is interesting because so many people have gamed the system (or tried to) that Mr. Klein needed to come up with a plan to take some of that out of the picture. I don’t think it’s true at all that Blue States aren’t wild about G&T education. If you look through the NY Times archives, you can see that the Upper West Side and Upper East Side of Manhattan have had numerous battles to get more G&T programs. It is true that G&T is underfunded here, but I wonder if that’s not because of the strength of the teachers’ union.</p>
<p>We have no gifted ed, here in MA, but it doesn’t matter. Everything I have ever read or witnessed with gifted ed convinces me that it is a silly waste of time, and that the methodology for selecting kids is flawed. Not only that, but as I have said here before, there is as much of a difference between a child with an IQ of 140 and one of 120, as between one of 120 and 100, even though both children in the first example are considered “gifted” and the last kid in the second example is just “average”. But to the kid with the 140 IQ, that 120 kid isn’t much like him at all either. The difference is profound.</p>
<p>So, there are a lot of problems with these programs, and the kids that are picked up and addressed are nice bright kids, but not necessarily any super intellects.</p>
<p>There also needs to be a recognition that not all kids are “gifted” in the same ways. I have known many mediocre or even poor students who were gifted atheletes or artists or musicians. It isn’t just those kids who are academically gifted who need additional support and challenge.</p>
<p>That map showed Illinois as funding gifted ed, but I understood that they discontinued gifted ed funding a few years ago. Elsewhere on the site they confirmed this for the 2005 school year. In IL it was a budgetary issue.</p>
<p>My nephew was in an elementary ed. pull-out program. One day per week a bus rode around town and collected all the gifted kids, who attended an enrichment class together. My sister said it was the one day a week when she didn’t have to drag him out of bed.</p>
<p>It is never too early (or too late) to identify gifted kids- their needs (and diversity) are just as great as the opposite end of the Bell curve. Early intervention would help a lot of gifted kids. The testing methodology may be a problem, but don’t deny these kids a chance at an appropriate education because the system has flaws. Kids are born gifted, the most profoundly gifted are probably most easily identified at an earlier age, just as are the most profoundly ■■■■■■■■. Using the models for a differentiated education such as used in “special” education can be useful. Why should a child have to wait until they force the system to acknowledge their different learning abilities through misbehavior or other evidence of a mismatch? Hopefully the system will be fluid, allowing changes in identification at various stages.</p>
<p>Our state allows school districts to set up some sort of gifted program at state expense IF they wish to. Some do a little, just a couple do a lot, many do nothing. Our school district has set up a one day a week pull-out program for 3rd-5th grade. Wow. Big deal. All it accomplished was that my son didn’t hate going to school one day a week, for three years.</p>
<p>I have two children, a bit over two years apart in age. One is very gifted, and it was obvious from the beginning–and I do mean the beginning. The other is smart, a voracious and advanced reader, writes poetry for fun, but is not gifted in the same way. To suggest that the same elementary school curriculum was appropriate for the two of them is ridiculous. My son started out loving school but hated it by the time he was in second grade. Not only was he bored to death, but he found it difficult to find classmates who shared his interests; the school district quite literally went out of its way to spread the gifted kids as thinly as possible among the classrooms so they could be a good “example” to the other students. The other students did not benefit, and the gifted kids ended up isolated.</p>
<p>I don’t necessarily trust the testing procedures, nor do I think they should be restricted to one age group, but the notion that every kid should be force-fed the exact same curriculum in the early grades is nonsense. My son’s first-grade teacher, an experienced older woman, defied the principal by setting up four reading level groups (the grouping was fluid throughout the year). The other four first-grade classes in the same school complied with the principal’s–and the school district’s curriculum expert’s dictates–and let the advanced readers stagnate for a year. What nonsense.</p>
<p>My kids have spend years in groups all by themselves (sometimes, away in other classrooms, alone…talk about isolating), or finishing the idiot work and being a “role model” (i.e. teaching assistant, tutor, whatever) to other students. </p>
<p>Both were awful solutions. </p>
<p>But even other kids who would have been identified as “gifted”, had we had such a system, were not like my oldest one, in particular, so the gifted group would still not have met his needs. I figure it was up to me to do so, and so I did, to the best of my ability.</p>
<p>I think that what is needed is not so much G&T classes but flexibility. My S would not have benefitted from G&T classes that typically mix students who are gifted with those who are high achievers, working at perhaps one or two grade levels above their age peers. In some subjects, though not all, he needed to be 4-5 grade levels. After some resistance from some teachers, he was able to get the right amount of flexibility. While he did not want to be grade-skipped, the age gap was not a problem in the classes he did take, whether as an 8th grader in high school or a 9th grader in college.
Our district spends a huge amount per student (not altogether wisely). We live in MA, which does not have gifted education. But in MA, there are many educational opportunities ranging from an abundance of universities and community colleges, all sorts of enrichment programs that draw students from far and wide (MIT’s SPLASH and the high school equivalents), many museums.
So perhaps what can be done in states like MA cannot be replicated elsewhere. It’s not a question of red state/blue state.
But I do not recognize Christcorp’s definition of blue state/red state differences. It depends on the issue, doesn’t it? When it comes to marriage and sexuality, blue staters are more likely to say live and let live. But MA has the lowest rate of divorce in the country.</p>
<p>Most researchers agree that gifted children’s talents come from their parent’s genes. Of those who don’t believe it is inherited, many of those believe that the parents are still the most important force in recognizing and developing the child between the ages of birth and 4 years old.</p>
<p>In other words, most agree that you don’t need specialized or standard testing set up to determine if your child is gifted. Basically, you will know. You might think the opposite; like the child might have Asperger’s, but instead is gifted. Once you believe you child is different or exhibits a unique trait, you should have them tested. Whether it’s because of a positive or negative exhibition or demonstration.</p>
<p>A large percentage of parents aren’t involved enough in their children’s early development. They leave them in play-pens, cribs, etc… They leave them with baby sitters. They do the basic necessities like feed, change, hold, etc… They don’t really stimulate curiosity or emotional bonding.</p>
<p>So, if the child isn’t tested and labeled as gifted, but they are, chances are the child is still going to excel in school. Under normal circumstances. If the child is mislabeled as gifted and they really aren’t, chances are they will do average in school. Or they may find out that the child has Asperger’s or some other issue.</p>
<p>The problem with this is the parents. Many want their children to be “Special” and “Different” (Gifted). Yet, it isn’t their fault if the child isn’t. The parent obviously didn’t have the gene and therefor didn’t pass it on to the child. Of course, there’s those who’s child doesn’t meet the parent’s expectation, and the parent refuses to accept the fact that maybe it’s because they didn’t spend enough time developing the child when they were younger. Or maybe that the child is developing in a different area. These parents are quick to have their child diagnosed with ADD, ADHD, Asperger’s. or anything else to take the blame off of them.</p>
<p>There are plenty of children who grew up in the 50’s,60’s,70’s, as well as even before that, that didn’t have any specialized or standardized testing done on them. They were obviously recognized as being smart or advanced. There’s also some that were “C” students throughout elementary and high school, by skyrocketed in college with a 4.0gpa and went on to law school or medical school and other advanced academics.</p>
<p>So, if you want a “Better” gifted and/or talented child program for your child; or one in the first place; then you already have it. It’s called parents who are involved with their child’s development at birth. If you help develop your child, then it doesn’t matter if their is a program in school or not. You child will excel and be very self motivated. If you need the in school programs, because your child isn’t motivated enough, then just recognize why that is. You would be surprised how many parents, even on forums like this, used the schools as a baby sitter service. Believing that it’s the “School’s Job” to educate and develop their children. It’s not, but many believe it is.</p>
<p>Of course, there are also the parents who live their lives and accomplishments through their children. The pressure they put on the child. Children who can’t be kids. Children who have very few friends. Children who are outcasts in school. etc… All so the parents can have bragging rights and themselves feel superior. </p>
<p>I think of all the children who excelled and did well growing up. Recognized by their parents with exceptional talents and abilities. Assisted by their parents to nurture and mature their talent or gifts. The children who wound up being 4.0gpa students with exception SAT/ACT and got accepted into most colleges and universities they applied to. Or the student who was exception in music, art, etc… And their teacher made sure that they were “Featured” in the exhibition, concert, recital, etc… Where they were further recognized for their extraordinary talent. The child who excelled physically at every sport they touched. Where the parent helped the child stay focused on a particular sport. Or maybe the choices were limited by what the school had to offer.</p>
<p>In other words, there are plenty of gifted and talented people throughout our time that have done quite well without having been tested, labeled, prejudged, pressured, and put into some socially disturbing environment in the rationalization that it is what was best for the child. Why is it that most people think that whatever is done today is automatically BETTER than the way things were done 20,30, or 50 years ago. Sorry, but progress isn’t always better. If progress was always better, people like Al Gore wouldn’t be B*tching about global warming and mankind’s destruction of the planet.</p>
<p>I agree with wharfrat and mom of four.</p>
<p>Many schools & even whole districts, are not set up to identify students who aren’t as obvious- nor are they set up to support them.</p>
<p>We were very young when we started having kids- we moved to a house within blocks of an elementary school. Didn’t really know anything about the district or the school.
Our daughter as a participant in a high risk study, ( she was 10 weeks early), had been identified as having scores in the top .03 % of population.
Meh.
She taught herself to read @ 3, blah, blah blah. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>However, when I asked if there was something that D could be doing while the teacher was working on letter and number identification with the other kids, the K teacher at the local school suggested we look elsewhere, to my dismay.
Classrooms were not set up for child driven learning- but everyone working on the same thing at the same time. ( I did notice that the artwork was amazing- until I had seen the adult volunteers telling the kids what to do with their paintings. Then I learned to look for scribbles proudly posted on the walls, not Picassos)
I knew my D was a lively active learner- but I didn’t want that to be bled out of her by having to sit quietly and wait.
Not that I didn’t think she could do it, but I remember that as * my experience* and I didn’t want it for my daughter.( I did enter school early- but that was as far as acknowledgement of talents went)</p>
<p>I did find one school in the district that I thought would work for her- but it was impossible to be admitted to. ( It wasn’t gifted- but * alternative*)
The private schools looked wonderful- but mindboggling, even if I ignored the income and status of many of the parents.
I could not decide which was the best fit. I had never known anyone who had attended private school who wasn’t Catholic 
I felt my daughter was smarter than I was( at least regarding what felt right) so I asked her which school she wanted to attend.
( We had looked at “Country Day” schools, where aupairs and nannies dropped off the kids, Waldorf schools where they were horrified that she already was reading & I was horrified that they thought felt pens were too bright, Montessori schools where they abhored " pretend". I was down to deciding which schools had the best snacks :D</p>
<p>She picked a school- they came back with enough aid so that she could attend and she stayed there through 5th grade ( and even went back to work there for a while during college), but it still was difficult enough to come up with the money even with aid, that we still had her apply to the public district enrichment programs ( the district had three levels of accelerated programs).
We didn’t use her testing that had been administered by the university professor ( and where her IQ was in the 160 ballpark), but used the district group administered testing. She wasn’t able to qualify for even the mildly enriched program. The district was not interested in students who were lopsided and they are not set up to serve them.
We kept her in private school.</p>
<p>I see the district still insisting that students who have any areas that are below grade level bring those areas up before they are allowed to excel in areas that they are strong. Some schools get around that, but it is hard to find them. I believe that we should teach to their strenghts and use that- rather than continually focus on their weaknesses.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Amen.</p>
<p>In reply to an earlier post from Jessie, we encountered only one teacher who was ideologically opposed to curriculum compacting my S for math. She said she did not believe in tracking because it was elitist. So she did not want to give extra (and more challenging) math to S. Ironically, she did not realize that she had enriched S1 several years earlier when he asked her for more stuff to read in his social studies unit. She just gave him her own teaching notes, delighted that a 3rd grader loved to read and research. The same thought, however, did not occur to her when it came to S2’s love of math. In the other cases where S2’s needs were met, the teachers were simply overworked or not math experts, rather than ideologically opposed to acceleration. It’s only when S met with specialists that they were able to diagnose the level at which he should be working; and everybody then worked to make that possible. </p>
<p>Again, perhaps the blue state/red state difference in this are has less to do with ideology than financial and educational resources available locally. My kids have taken field trips to the Fogg Museum, the Peabody Museum of Ethnography, the Museum of Natural History all at Harvard; the Boston Museum of Fine Arts, labs at MIT and Boston University. All this before high school.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>It should have been NOT met.</p>
<p>I disagree with #29, Christcorp. The needs of BRIGHT kids were met in past years, but the gifted were never challenged enough. I have also run into several parents, usually professional immigrants, who don’t realize their child is gifted- I saw the child, heard them and discussed their activities with a parent (eg while waiting for our elementary kids to get out of school years ago) and can tell these kids are gifted. These parents are used to the high levels of ability in their extended families and don’t know what average is. I also remember incidents from my childhood that showed inadequate GT education in a good school system. Not all parents want their kids to be different, and some assume the system will work when it usually needs effort by parents. Teachers need to be taught about teaching gifted students- most colleges do not require any gifted education courses, nor are most teachers gifted themselves and so have no personal experience. General screening for giftedness will bring awareness of the diversity amongst higher achieving students. There is a performance ceiling that doesn’t distinguish between high achievement and giftedness- getting A’s, MD’s, PhD’s and other top levels of performance do not mean a person is gifted- hard work can get one there. The effort required by plus the amount of achievement without stressing differentiates the gifted- in HS, eg high grades (not necessarily all A’s as they don’t always jump through the proper hoops) plus high test scores plus several varied EC’s plus time to read for fun, play computer games and get enough sleep for the gifted whereas only some of the above for bright hard workers.</p>
<p>Got on my soapbox there because there are still far too many bored young children out there, some who will become underachievers or worse because no one realized they had the extreme ability in one or more area -too many stereotypes/misconceptions still exist. Bravo for any steps taken in increasing awareness. P.S., I’m a physician, not an educator.</p>