<p>I agree with Northstarmom’s definition, and its downfalls. I don’t know what word wouldn’t bother people; I just know that my kid’s mind leaps across spaces in ways that I don’t think most others do, which helped him stumble into an Ivy with one hand tied behind his back (not really trying all that hard) and wasn’t enough to keep him there when he went back to not trying very hard.</p>
<p>Would I rather he was less smart, gifted, or whatever word doesn’t hurt anyone’s feelings, but worked harder at school? Honestly, no (blast away!). I wouldn’t give up one IQ point or however you want to measure it. His mind is him, and makes him the fascinating, endearing, imaginative person he is. The maddening stuff can be outgrown, but the individual can’t be replaced.</p>
<p>I wouldn’t change that.</p>
<p>Edit: I will add that the work ethic thing drives me nuts, as the rest of us in the immediate family have it in spades, but we have extended relatives who’ve had more issues like his, and have overcome them, so we rely on that for sanity.</p>
<p>The interesting thing to me is that traditionally, academically high-achieving subgroups in the US (Asians, Indian, Jews) rarely trusted the whole concept of ‘giftedness’ probably due to suspicion of labels of ANY kind. What was and is being stressed is work, desire, focus. I can’t help but think we’d all be better off if schools demanded those qualities first, and looked for ‘giftedness’ second. But as Mr. Payne pointed out, an awful lot of IQ "experts’ would be out of work, as well as school administrators who make a pretty nice living catering to the ambitious parents of ‘gifted’ kids.</p>
<p>garland, i love your post. the giving up of IQ points was said in jest. i really adore my kid for who he is which is primarily sweet, funny, kind and a talented cook. Unlike your kid, this one won’t get into an Ivy, but I’m OK with that.</p>
<p>Katlia, that wasnt addressed so much to you but to the prevailing “work hard is better than smarts ethos.” I can’t argue it in a vaccuum; I just have to go on gut feelings. And what can be better, overall, than “sweet, funny, kind and a talented cook”? that would describe my S, too, except for the cooking part! :)</p>
<p>I was classified as “gifted” at the age of 3, in the late 1950’s, when I was admitted to a special school for gifted children in NYC, where I remained for the next eight years. (I still remember taking the admissions test. Especially that I had trouble climbing up on the chair I was supposed to sit in! But I sure could talk.) And I assure all of you that it’s not a ticket to anything – particularly, I can personally attest, fame and fortune!</p>
<p>Mostly, other people do catch up. I may have been one of the most impressive little kids in Manhattan when I was 4, but by the time I was in high school, well, I was just one of thousands like me. Smart, and high-achieving academically, but no Einstein. </p>
<p>So when I realized that my son was every bit as precocious as I ever was (far more so in some ways), I didn’t get too excited about it. And certainly never “had him tested,” like a lot of other parents I knew did with their kids. And I have never communicated to him that he should feel that any of this means he’s any more “special” than any other kid. Even though, of course, he’s the most wonderful kid in the world, to me! And even though I’m not the least bit surprised at how superlative he’s been academically, at the things he’s really good at. Which certainly isn’t everything.</p>
<p>Anyway, as he goes off to college in September, he has far better study habits than I did at his age. </p>
<p>I agree with NSM’s definition. DS was a high IQ kid but he was not a high achiever academically in elementary school. SO …he was NOT invited to be in the gifted program. At our school that was only for the kids who were high achievers in EVERYTHING and had high IQ’s too. DS didn’t do well in math. Poof…that meant he wasn’t “gifted”. It suited us just fine. There were plenty of ways we supplemented his interests and talents outside of school.</p>
<p>I do not have a problem with student being designated as gifted. That is a reality for some students. </p>
<p>I DO have a problem when folks use the label of “gifted” as an excuse for not doing well in school or not getting work done. “My gifted child wasn’t challenged so he didn’t do the work.” The gifted kids I see at my school (ok…maybe they are just the bright kids)…get the work done quickly and then are on to their own individual work projects. It’s not an excuse for not getting work done, it’s a ticket to getting to do more interesting and exciting work.</p>
<p>Our school system changed the name of the program in the elementary schools from AG …Academically Gifted to TD…Talent Development. Both my kids were in it. Both disliked it intensely. One went on to be a top student in hs., the other, a very average middle of the pack student. To me, the labels are meaningless.</p>
<p>I was amazed at the number of parents of elementary sch. kids who took their kids in for “private evaluation” to validate their "giftedness "when their kids failed to place into the TD program under the public schools guidelines.<br>
The once a week classes were meaningless to my kids (just extra busywork) and had no impact on m.s. or h.s.</p>
<p>As I’ve said elsewhere (and as someone with a specialty in this field), the label is only helpful if (1) it’s accurate, having been determined by a competent professional, (2) it results in meaningful opportunities for the student, of a different type & style than what he otherwise would be exposed to. Neither “more of the same” in just more intense quantity, nor tokenism, are examples of meaningful opportunities. Obviously PackMom’s kids were ill served. I don’t know about the “public school guidelines” in that particular case. Some guidelines do not assess for giftedness but for high achievement, which may or may not overlap. But I’m amused at the alternative evaluation story, because it sounds like The Program was of little value to gifted students in the first place, so why go to all that trouble? :)</p>
<p>katliamom - we have the same child!<br>
Mine is a junior in college now.
She was a very early reader who loved and still loves books. She was so bored in the early grades that she never did any homework or school work. She was a disorganized mess - but she could get an A on any test.
She read to the kids in pre-school when she was 4 and took turns reading chapter books to the kids with the teacher in 1st grade.
Middle school was a nightmare. She could not conform. She was teased mercilessly and her 6th grade teacher wanted her in special ed.
The only one who “understood” her was the principal.
She is very non-competitive and could have cared less about her GPA in high school. No interest in NHS or if she made principal’s list.<br>
She has every characteristic that was posted by Northstarmom.
She took the SAT’s junior year for the first time and she said “it was fun” - scored over 700 on both tests. she had refused to study and we got in a fight before the test because she had “misplaced” her school id. again.<br>
when she got her scores she asked if 1450 was good.</p>
<p>She has thrived in college - she picked a very small, non-competitive school.
She is still disorganized and hates homework but it all seems more relevant.
While she never learned good study habits in HS, she is slowly learning them in college.
Most importantly, she has also developed close personal relationships - both male and female - something that never happened in high school.
She is growing up and learning to fit in this world but it hasn’t been easy.</p>
<p>Like Packmom - I (and she) found the gifted classes she was in were mostly a waste of time - but better than sitting in the classroom daydreaming.</p>
<p>Moratorium on “gifted” and “brilliant”? Sorry, but there is a wide range of high achieving individuals who are not the apparent “geniuses” you seem to feel these terms should be limited to (“Gifted” was never meant to apply only to geniuses). And these high achieving students deserve more than the “one size fits all” education they would receive today (as a result of NCLB?) UNLESS they are “labeled” so as to qualify for the very limited opportunities available for higher achieving students. </p>
<p>Of course, the psychological impact of these labels on our kids is a completely different issue, but perhaps we need to FIRST change the overall educational system (ie funding) so that such labels are not even necessary for any student to receive the quality of education they need to meet their potential?</p>
<p>I’m always bemused when I read these discussions of what terms to use to describe children at the upper end of the academic talent spectrum. While the terms may have real signficances (like whether your kid gets into a particular program), actual kids use much simpler terms that everybody understands. They refer to “smart,” “normal,” and “dumb” kids, and they identify some kids as “not that smart, but works really hard and gets As.” They also talk about some kids who are smart, but lazy. They might refer to a few kids as “super brains” or “brainiacs.” In my opinion, they usually do a better job of accurately categorizing than we do.</p>
<p>I have already agreed in an earlier reply with the idea that the school system needs to be more flexible to meet the needs of all learners. Here I’ll note that quite a few scholars are studying whether current spending patterns get the best value for the large amount of tax dollars devoted to K-12 education in the United States or not. Looking at how the public’s money is spent and whether it is spent wisely is an important area of research in education policy. </p>
<p>Epiphany’s comment about the testing resulting in “meaningful opportunities for the student, of a different type & style than what he otherwise would be exposed to” is so very true. The experience we’ve had with a program for academically gifted kids was excellent. In our school district, families have the choice between a self-contained program and a one day a week pullout. We chose self-contained for grades 5-8 and it provided the kind of education which the kids needed. Was there resentment from some parents? Yes, although I never heard of anyone having their kids re-tested, nor of the school allowing any child to enter the program in this way. </p>
<p>With the exception of maybe one or two kids who did not function well in the program, all of the kids had a great experience. One of my Ds who attended, and a niece who is also a part of our family, organized a reunion of their two classes last summer, and almost all attended. It was fun to see these kids who I remembered so well from years ago. They are doing a range of different things ( I can’t remember all with my menopausal brain but these are a good representation of the variety of things they’re doing) - six in med school, two in the Peace Corps, two engineers, three taking a Masters in Educ., two musicians, one in a Masters in Public Health, one working as an organ retrieval specialist, one in an MBA program, one is a semi-struggling sculptor, two working in financial institutions, one an animation specialist for Disney, one is a dancer, two going to law school this fall (including my niece), and my D who’s working as an actor and writer. These were, and are, well-rounded kids with many interests, who happened to have different learning needs and abilities. </p>
<p>Would these kids have ended up in the same places if they hadn’t had that special program? I don’t know the answer to that but I do know that, for my girls, it was key to their academic progress and success during those critical middle school years. Their need for a specialized education suited to their needs was every bit as important and necessary as the need of another niece who had severe learning disabilities and who was provided with a program which was structured to suit HER needs. We were grateful that our schools provided kids at all points of the academic spectrum with the education they required.</p>
<p>Are there really that many parents who refer to their child as ‘gifted’? I have to admit that I haven’t experienced that in all the years I’ve been a mom, and certainly not from the parents whose kids were in the same program as my kids. Maybe the official identification of ‘academically gifted’ should have a change in terminology but, honestly, I don’t think the wording is the actual problem in most cases.</p>
<p>Funny story…D2 was tested when she was reading upon entering school. She was placed in TAGs program (Talented and Gifted). Pulled out for enrichment classes and away from her friends, had extra work, etc. By the time she was in 5th grade and tested several more times she asked why she always had to leave her friends and why she had to miss out on class things. She was told it was because she had done well on her tests. Big Mistake! The next OL and MAT she took she completely bombed! Needless to say the school dropped her from the program because she didn’t meet their set standards. She is still an excellent student but, man, I have to admire her spunk! She was smart enough to get what she wanted and continue to be at the top of her class. She still doesn’t regret her actions and I think she’ll always know what works for her.</p>
<p>Hunt, That kind of thinking is why they are still kids. Children with LD are often very bright, perhaps smarter than the kids who classify them as “dumb”. In middle school, which you may know is exceptionally hard on kids socially, my daughter had a teacher that demostrated what it was like for a kid with ADD. She taught her class normally, but every 10 minutes she had a student bang pots and pans. Every student in that class had a hard time paying attention to the lesson and did poorly on the quiz at the end of the lesson. Many of her classmates finally understood what it was like for her in class (x’s 7). She repeated the lesson with other disabilities as well and it was very enlightening for all involved. I have always been of the opinion that money spent on gifted programs was a waste (having had a child that participated in one) and knowing that my “gifted” child would do well in school and life. Having read this thread I now know my child was never gifted, just smart, and that truely gifted children probably do require special accommodations in school. If an exceptionally bright child is unable to maintain A’s + B’s (even without a lot of effort) or function normally in the classroom, it seems to me there is reason to be concerned.</p>
<p>Hunt: I agree. Kids are much more down-to-earth about who is smart and who is dumb or stupid.</p>
<p>Frankly, I don’t see the big deal- most human abilities (including mental abilities) tend to follow a normal distribution around the mean. We are all somewhere under that curve. Some of us are at one end of that curve. The important thing IMO is to try and make sure that the curve is HORIZONTALLY oriented- smart people are not SUPERIOR human beings.</p>
<p>NorthMinnesota, that’s so funny! A couple of years ago my non-gifted second grader was preparing to take his first standardized tests, and the school went overboard in telling him “don’t worry, the test doesn’t matter.” He took it literally and answered about 10 questions, randomly, on the whole test. Needless to say, there was quite an uproar and they wanted to test him for special services. However, to the school’s credit, they all had a great laugh when he explained what had happened.</p>
<p>D2 was always bright and achieved good things, but when she took the test for admission to Stuyvesant, we weren’t all that optimistic because her small Catholic school was a whole regents exam behind what was needed in math. She took the test and blew it out of the water, ace-ing material that she had never seen in her life. The consequence of THAT was that she can never, ever tell me that she is “lousy at math.”</p>
<p>Well, gosh, aren’t smart people better at certain things than people who aren’t as smart? Isn’t Tiger Woods a better athlete than, say, Homer Simpson? I certainly believe that all people have equal worth in the cosmic sense, and all deserve respect and opportunities, but I’m willing to recognize that certain people are superior to me in certain respects.</p>
but these are a good representation of the variety of things they’re doing) - six in med school, two in the Peace Corps, two engineers, three taking a Masters in Educ., two musicians, one in a Masters in Public Health, one working as an organ retrieval specialist, one in an MBA program, one is a semi-struggling sculptor, two working in financial institutions, one an animation specialist for Disney, one is a dancer, two going to law school this fall (including my niece), and my D who’s working as an actor and writer. These were, and are, well-rounded kids with many interests, who happened to have different learning needs and abilities. </p>