Off Topic "Gifted" Gymnasts

DON'T LURK... Join The Discussion!

Members see FEWER ads

In an ideal world, kids (and adults!) would be able to learn each subject at their own rate. US school systems are so age-clustered (instead of ability clustered) that it rarely works that way. GT programs are trying to provide a challenge for those who grasp whatever it is right away.

But then, I firmly believe that every single kid should have an IEP-not just the outliers. One size never fits all.

My twice ex program saved me in terms of "love of learning". What I learned before that program started was that learning is boring & tedious and having to share a book with a partner really bites because there's no way you both read at the same speed, and that reading/learning ahead gets you penalized (like reducing fractions in 2nd grade, when you're just sort of starting fractions, ish. 2/4 of the beads are red, and that's 1/2, and I was not wrong...). Major disincentive, right? (and that was a good school district, I've been told)

What I learned with the twice-ex program was that I was allowed to use the stuff I already knew, & that if I was really good at math, I could do something harder, & if I sucked at geography, I could do it more slowly-which is how a lot of the real world works, yeah? As an adult you can totally play to your strengths. And those teachers were more accustomed, I think, to kids asking questions they couldn't answer, because the answer always was "let's go find out", which reignited that love of learning that regular classes almost squashed out of me.

Hard and fast labels are difficult, but multiple learning options for multiple kinds of learners should be more common.
 
In school I am taking mostly AP and Honors courses, and I've been in the Gifted And Talented Education program since 4th grade. I am admittedly quite a nerd, and I like programming, Math, and Science. I have a 4.0/4.2 GPA, but I will continue to say that I think grades has nothing to do with intelligence. I have a lot of friends who have "average grades" because they hate homework yet completely dominate all tests.

In gymnastics I generally turn out on the better side of scoring and have a nice amount of medals. By no means am I one of the girls who gets 9.2's on events WITH a fall though.

But would I link proficiency in gymnastics and school together for me, or anyone? Haha, no. Personally I just think that people who do better in school also do better in gymnastics because they tend to be more disciplined and listen to teachers/coaches better than others.
 
Hard and fast labels are difficult, but multiple learning options for multiple kinds of learners should be more common.

If we truly had multiple learning options in this country, we would have far less need for labeling. Someday, maybe.....

BTW, the only reason my kiddos were tested as because the school would not differentiate their learning without the label. And seeing as though they were 2-5 grades above their peers, there was a definite need for this. DH and I didn't need labels. we already knew what we were dealing with. We had homeschooled them for several years prior. The teachers didn't really need it - one quick observation showed them where the kids were functioning. It was the red tape and the way the system is set up that forced the labeling. There is no perfect situation for every child but I stand by ability grouping as the best solution in the core subjects. It's done in the middle and high schools anyway. Why it was done away with in the elementary schools makes very little sense. I know the history of why homogeneous grouping became so popular. I just don't agree with it. And I certainly don't agree with single age classrooms. But I'm afraid that is here to stay in the public school system. Just hoping more charter schools begin to see the benefit of multiple year class setup.
 
I'm sorry, but that is a pretty hurtful statement. Rereading what I wrote I can understand that in trying not to write a novel, I left out parts of the story that may have helped in making my thought clearer. I was trying to use an example from my own life to illistrate a point, which I guess I didn't do very well. I apologize for that. But, I said a lot of things that I feel added value to this discussion and you to picked out one sentence of my personal life journey and call me out on.

I certainly take responsibility for my choices and don't even believe that gt resources in highschool could have "saved" me at that point. Eventually, I did that for myself.

It wasn't simply that I was bored in school or didn't want to try and just picking up a book would have helped. I averaged a book a week in highschool (still do), did all my required school work plus constantly tried to feed my need to learn more and more and more and that still left time for partying and boys and all sorts of trouble. I also went many times to my counselor at school asking for help and more resources and more challenging work (I was already taking all honors and AP classes available), only to be told that nothing was available and that I should try cheerleading. Geez!

What I was trying to get at, and if you look at the research this is not all that uncommon, after years of being told that the way I was wasn't "right" and that I should just do my best to fit in with classmates I had nothing in common with and told to just pick up an extra book or explore something I liked (which I was already doing on my own), being labeled by teachers as a troublemaker because I was bored in class and had a hard time paying attention and tolerating others, I just gave up. If that's who everyone thought I was, then it was just easier to be that person.

Was it the right thing to do? Of course not. Could I have just chosen a different path? Maybe, but it sure didn't feel like there were many options at the time.

I own my story and take responsibility for my choices. I also stand by my belief that if, early on, I had been given the support and resources by my parents and schools to succeed and deal with the emotional and learning issues as well as academic challenges that my daughter is getting right now, I would have had a better foundation and more confidence to help me reach my full potential and make better choices as a teenager.

I have thoroughly enjoyed this discussion and have great respect for both sides of the argument. I didn't mean bringing up my personal story to mean anything, but simply to give an example.

I think I may have missed something here..... I read and "liked" Sally's post, but I didn't think she had directed that directly at you... as I said, I'm going to have to go back and reread. But I definitely do agree with what I took from her comment, and that is... everyone... child, teenager, adult has choices to make. I try to encourage my 5th graders (on a daily basis) to make GOOD choices regarding their academics. Some of my students just do not WANT to put forth any effort to get their work done. I am not going to fight w/them to do it, that's their parents' job. So, even though some of these kids are really bright, they are also lazy and unmotivated. Maybe once their mature, they will realize that their future depends on getting a good, high quality education.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think most of the active discussion here involves elementary-aged kids, right? In some ways, it's kind of a relief once the kids get to high school. There is no longer any of the whole "GT" labelling... YAY!!!!! And, of course, since there's no such thing as a "permanent record" in elementary and middle school, everyone starts off with a clean academic slate! At this point, it's all about AP and Honors classes, thank goodness. The playing field is levelled in that most of the school districts highly encourage EVERYONE to take AP classes! It's such a breath of fresh air to see some of these kids flourish in the higher level classes.
 
For me, education is about keeping the child involved. Whether they are more or less able, if they are happy and interested at school they will learn.

I totally agree that the key is keeping a child happy and interested. But when the teacher is teaching a concept for the 8th, 9th, 10th time, because the majority of the class needs that many repetitions it is hard to keep the "gifted" child involved and interested,because they grasped the concept the first time, or understood the concept before the teacher even opened his or her mouth. Conversely there are likely a handful of kids in the same classroom who need 15 or 20 or 30 repetitions of the same concept before they grasp it. I don't think it is about labels, I dislike the labeling in fact, but if the differences are not acknowledged and catered for then we are failing both groups of kids.
 
Older DD is gifted academically (identified and tested in 2nd grade). She is NOT a gifted gymnast, but she is a good gymnast. She is also a good dancer, good at piano, good at singing...in fact she is "good" at most things she tries. However she has had to work very hard as she has progressed through gymnastics and this has definitely been good for her since school has always come so easily. She is also very book smart but literally cannot figure out how to put a lid back on a jar (long story, but anyway).

Younger DD is not gifted academically, in fact she has an IEP and struggles. I believe that she has some natural "talent" for gymnastics, (and she is also a natural performer... )but also has a physical disability which makes many aspects of gym very hard for her. That might sound confusing, but it's the way I see it. Younger DD has to try VERY hard for most every success she has...in school and in the gym. She has to overcome simple things like taking her shoes on and off each day (this is still hard for her even though she can do 5 backhandsprings across the floor).

Tiny DD is also probably "gifted" intelligence wise and is a pretty average little 5 yr old in the gym, but she has ADHD and other issues and struggles with focus. So, things come more easily to her academically and gymnastically (not sure if that is a word)...but she also doesn't work very hard or apply herself.

This is an interesting thread, looking at the ways "intelligence" and gymnastics or other activities interact differently for different children. There is a huge difference in the way this works with my 3 girls. And don't even GET me started on the whole public school "teaching to the herd" mentality. Oops, you got me started. I'll stop now!
 
Older DD is gifted academically (identified and tested in 2nd grade). She is NOT a gifted gymnast, but she is a good gymnast. She is also a good dancer, good at piano, good at singing...in fact she is "good" at most things she tries. However she has had to work very hard as she has progressed through gymnastics and this has definitely been good for her since school has always come so easily.

You described my DD perfectly and also the reason why I happily live in the car/gym and at work to pay for everything. I want her to learn that with hard work and effort you get results, and gymnastics is teaching her that.
 
I will say one more thing and don't mean to be confrontational at all. I agree that in many states and school districts that there are many problems with these programs and that pushy parents "get their kids in" in some way or another and I absolutely agree that a challenging and well rounded curriculum should be provided to every student.

But, I think that all that is being discussed here is the academic part of the story. This isn't about standardized tests or labeling kids. One thing that kept coming up when we were making our decision (and it wasn't an easy one, we thought long and hard about whether this program or keeping her in her old school would be the right option) is that if she had a learning disability we would be doing everything in our power to make sure she had every resource available to her to make sure she got the best education possible to help her with that. Why is this any different?

....

This is what is right for my daughter and I know that all the great parents here are doing what's best for their kids every day. That's why we can have these meaningful conversations and disagree, yet still have great respect for one another.

I'm so glad to hear the way your district is doing things and I support any system that really caters to each childs needs in the most effective way possible.

Unfortunately the sad reality in my state is that GT programs are being inflated and pushed onto districts by the demands of a small group of parents, usually from a higher socio-economic group. They want all their children to be tested more frequently and included in some form in these programs, and when you add in budget cuts, it usually comes at the expense of other programs for children. It's an interesting argument then, whether or not it's fair that special needs children get "more" of the budget in the public eye then, for aids, special classrooms, adaptive equipment, etc. Other people argue that the average public school spends its resources teaching "down", not just to special needs children but to children who don't perform as well. When it comes down to it, all these programs are highly politicized little parties with leaders and lobbies and kids who get left behind in the process...

The point of the rant is that the GT crowd is a lobby group pushed by high income parents from high income schools within districts who end up winning a lot more of their battles proportionately when it comes to resources within a school district. Kids from higher income groups are far more statistically likely (I'm searching for the actual numbers from my district and possibly state, they're in stacks of publications I have in my highly unorganized office) to be tested for and then labeled as "GT" (two different things). Sure there is a gap of academic achievement between low and high socio-economic kids, often because of parental involvement and other environmental factors. But it doesn't explain the entire gap between GT and non-GT and it's often because the resources for the extensive testing are put in the higher income schools and particularly the higher income districts. From there more high-income kids will be labeled GT. It's not fair to blame a kid for anything because they come from a high income family and many are very deserving of the GT label. However because in our area it's such a political thing, I don't care for it in the educational setting as it is. I would prefer a system that tests all children based on various intelligences and helps them learn according to that. That way there's no "better" or "higher" or "smarter" label attached. After all we live in a country where parents spent thousands on test prep to get their kids into $30,000 a year PRE-Ks! It's not all parents of course and there's many sane folks out there, but it is indicitive of the way academic achievement is viewed in our culture.

I'm thrilled so many children have positive experiences with the GT programs in their area. My nephew really benefited from his too. But unfortunately there's so many children that miss out on these benefits and other children who are included in the group based on parental sway than achievement to make them an ideal solution to me. And as an educator I don't think it's the right direction to go in.

I think I'm so far into (read: jaded by) education I just find more questions than answers in my searches!
 
I think we have to remember that GT was created to provide a more balanced education for high ability kids, just like EC was created for the lower ability kids. It was never meant to take away from the middle 50% of the kids (the ones that routinely fall into the 25th-75th%ile). they were both created to give teachers resources in how to teach these kids (on both sides of the ability level). Many districts have done a fine job in program design, but for many more it is just a debacle.

What I find funny though, is that parent of "typical kids" will often comment that their child doesn't understand why her friend gets to go to these classes and she doesn't. However, this is never commented on when it is on the EC side. It's quite normal for parents and teachers to just comment that "well, ____ needs a little extra help with her school work and goes to Mrs.___ to do this." Why isn't it just as normal for one to say "Well, ___ needs a little extra challenge with her school work and so she goes to ____ for this". "Well, why can't I go?" "Because this is where most kids learn best but some children learn best outside their normal classrooms" It doesn't ever have to be about someone getting more or better attention. It's about which works best. Which comes right back to ability grouping and why it is best.
 
I'm thinking ALL kids would benefit from smaller size classes & more individualized attention to their individual needs. So little Susie is correct in wondering "Why can't I go to these special classes too?". She may have just missed the GT cut off by a point or 2. Maybe more individualized attention would move her from the 75% to the 85%ile or higher. Let HER reach HER full potential also. I have no problem with "enrichment", but in public schools it's paid for by tax dollars. So for Susie, who may have missed the GT cut off by just 1 or 2 points, to get "enrichment", her parents have to pay out of pocket & do it privately. All while paying taxes for her friend to get in in school. JMHO.
 
I have no problem with "enrichment", but in public schools it's paid for by tax dollars. So for Susie, who may have missed the GT cut off by just 1 or 2 points, to get "enrichment", her parents have to pay out of pocket & do it privately. All while paying taxes for her friend to get in in school. JMHO.

ITA - the way many programs are set up with hard number cutoffs, it does leave some students out and that's not right. but I also think that is why many school districts go all the way down to the 75th percentile (which technically is just the line between average and bright) to catch those kids in the grey areas and challenge them a little to see how far they will go. But lets be clear, while most GT programs are set up as enrichment programs, that was not the original intent. School districts have just found this to be an easier way to handle the problem of kids learning too fast - instead of letting them advance at the speed they should be learning, they have chosen to keep them at the same level and "enrich" to what they are already learning. Most don't even do a good job at that! they don't expand their base knowledge. they teach them extras that have nothing to do with the main curriculum. This is where many parents of non GT kids get upset because (rightfully so) their kids could benefit from that too.

to me, the optimum would be to look at the children individually and decide if their needs are being met in the current setting. If so, then there is no need to change it. If not, then programs should exist to correct this. this is true for EC as well. There are many kids falling through the cracks because they "look too good" on paper (test scores) but they are obviously struggling in the classroom. But the reality is that about 80% of kids can learn very effectively in a regular classroom without any additional supports. It's the other 20% (upper and lower) we need to do a better job with and it's not through enrichment.
 
OK, just one more comment - several people have mentioned the fairness issue and whether public tax money should be used to pay for something only a few students get to enjoy but I wonder how these same people feel about other programs that are publicly supported like sports (but my son loves baseball, what do you mean he didn't make the cut?), arts, music (I can't afford to rent the instruments), special education (but she struggles in ____), reduced lunch/breakfast program, tutoring (but I only make a few more dollars than the cutoff), busing (but I only live one less block away). These are all publicly funded programs in the schools and rarely do they come under fire in such a large way as GT does. Most people don't realize but GT is one of the first things to get cut in a school budget - except in those select districts where is it protected under the EC umbrella - which is why it was placed there in the first place.
 
Classes would be pretty small if they had to have "Gifted" IQ of 130. Mensa is supposed to be 98th percentile. Top 2% and around 130 IQ Many schools have GATE which requires an IQ of 120. I wasn't exposed to GATE until 8th grade but that's because I was in private christian schools till 7th grade. I've heard GATE is around much earlier in elementary school but our HighSchool did not have GATE However, in the past 10 years I've never had any parents tell me they had "Gifted" kids. It would be interesting to hear though. I've heard parents tell me they have this or that disorder. A few have had some interesting physical conditions and I have heard of two kids that might have myostatin defiency syndrome which basically is like superhuman strength in humans. I haven't heard of GATE in HighSchools ever but we had "Honors" classes.
 
OK, just one more comment - several people have mentioned the fairness issue and whether public tax money should be used to pay for something only a few students get to enjoy but I wonder how these same people feel about other programs that are publicly supported like sports (but my son loves baseball, what do you mean he didn't make the cut?), arts, music (I can't afford to rent the instruments), special education (but she struggles in ____), reduced lunch/breakfast program, tutoring (but I only make a few more dollars than the cutoff), busing (but I only live one less block away). These are all publicly funded programs in the schools and rarely do they come under fire in such a large way as GT does. Most people don't realize but GT is one of the first things to get cut in a school budget - except in those select districts where is it protected under the EC umbrella - which is why it was placed there in the first place.

School taxes are out of control exactly because of many of the things you have listed. Joe tax payer just can't keep with the sky rocketing tax bills. In my area 2 pubic school districts came extremely close to cutting ALL art programs across all grades. I cannot even imagine what that would have be like:(. But GT is under the EC umbrella. So yes, if all art classes were cut, yet "Susie's GT friend" still got art or whatever in her GT classes, I feel Susie's parents have a right to be angry. They are also talking of making all school sports pay to play in this area. The public is not made of money, limits need to be set or cuts need to made. The retired folks can hardly afford to stay in their orginal family homes due to the ever increasing taxes. They are on a fixed income & not getting any raises to cover cost of living & increased taxes. Certainly, no one wants tax cuts to involve their child. But they have to involve someone's child don't they? If a child is labled GT the parents should be proud & pay for whatever extra challenges the child needs. Don't expect Susie's parents to have to pay out of pocket for Susie to be challenged or be tutored AND pay taxes for her GT friend to get challenged on the public's tax dollars. I pay for what my kids need. Gymnastics is a luxury. If one can afford gymnastics, one can afford any challenges their child my "need". JMHO.
 
Education spending is messed up because more and more federal money is involved. Since the DOE was started many decades ago, achievement has been an absolute flat line. Response? Spend more money, get no results, spend more money.... I'm not saying there's a problem with the quality of our schools or there isn't, I'm just saying we've skyrocketed spending and we are not getting *any returns*, and for some reason, this means next year and the year after that we will spend MORE federal money. Control needs to be given back to the districts and the DOE shut down. Why are we spending more and more money year after year when we have hard data to show there are no results? Frustrated, the federal government demands results and threatens for lack of results, etc. and so the districts cheat. Shocking.

The way gymnastics has interacted with giftedness in my family has been as follows:

1. I was a highly gifted child and school was mostly a waste of time for me, but yet took up most of my childhood, thus, I sought a highly differentiated experience for my own children.
2. Gymnastics is one of the high-quality experiences offered in my metropolitan area.
3. I realized that the cost-benefit on a differentiated education pointed towards home schooling with quality outsourcing of ability-grouped learning, versus battling with the schools or paying for the real estate a private school sits on (while my kitchen island is available for free).

So gymnastics is part PE for them, and they have a flexible learning environment that supports that.

There is good evidence that acceleration is better for outcomes than enrichment, but it's rarely used. IRPA - A Nation Deceived
 
I think homeschooling is a wonderful option emorymom:). As far as public schooling, cost & challenging GT kids. Back in the '60's my brother, tested into the next higher grade, so they moved him up to that grade. He was challenged for the entire school day, not just the hour or so GT kids get pulled out for now. And he was in a "regular" classroom, not singled out as "special" & getting something others were not. No teachers had to be paid to teach extra classes, so it was not a burden on any tax payers. JMHO.
 
I think homeschooling is a wonderful option emorymom:). As far as public schooling, cost & challenging GT kids. Back in the '60's my brother, tested into the next higher grade, so they moved him up to that grade. He was challenged for the entire school day, not just the hour or so GT kids get pulled out for now. And he was in a "regular" classroom, not singled out as "special" & getting something others were not. No teachers had to be paid to teach extra classes, so it was not a burden on any tax payers. JMHO.

Some districts still do this, but very few. Charter, magnet and private schools tend to use this more than traditional public schools. In the 80's, the powers-that-be determined that acceleration was detrimental to the child's psyche and that children should be kept with their same age peers (yeah, because that is how life works - huh?) that's how enrichment and differentiation came about.

Acceleration certainly is better than enrichment but unfortunately the benefits usually only last a year or two because that's all it takes for a GT to pass his peers again. Still, the hope is that it buys enough time to keep the child challenged, with some differentiation, until middle school when more challenging courses can be provided (algebra in 6th, instead of 8th, for instance).

I think the public school establishment has a lot to learn from the up-and-coming charter and magnet schools who really attempt to individualize each child's learning and are less obsessed with keeping same age peers together.
 
Education spending is messed up because more and more federal money is involved. Since the DOE was started many decades ago, achievement has been an absolute flat line. Response? Spend more money, get no results, spend more money.... I'm not saying there's a problem with the quality of our schools or there isn't, I'm just saying we've skyrocketed spending and we are not getting *any returns*, and for some reason, this means next year and the year after that we will spend MORE federal money. Control needs to be given back to the districts and the DOE shut down. Why are we spending more and more money year after year when we have hard data to show there are no results? Frustrated, the federal government demands results and threatens for lack of results, etc. and so the districts cheat. Shocking.

The way gymnastics has interacted with giftedness in my family has been as follows:

1. I was a highly gifted child and school was mostly a waste of time for me, but yet took up most of my childhood, thus, I sought a highly differentiated experience for my own children.
2. Gymnastics is one of the high-quality experiences offered in my metropolitan area.
3. I realized that the cost-benefit on a differentiated education pointed towards home schooling with quality outsourcing of ability-grouped learning, versus battling with the schools or paying for the real estate a private school sits on (while my kitchen island is available for free).

So gymnastics is part PE for them, and they have a flexible learning environment that supports that.

There is good evidence that acceleration is better for outcomes than enrichment, but it's rarely used. IRPA - A Nation Deceived

I think I have found my twin - at least on this topic! LOL ITA!
 

New Posts

DON'T LURK... Join The Discussion!

Members see FEWER ads

Gymnaverse :: Recent Activity

College Gym News

New Posts

Back