Off Topic "Gifted" Gymnasts

[coachmolly]

One thing that I think people overlook when thinking about GT is that these kids (the top 5-10%) are our future scientists, doctors, philosophers, writers etc. These are the ones who have the potential to change the world in a big way. but in order to do that, they need to be in for the long haul in the academic world. If they are bored silly by 2nd grade, they become underachievers and never reach their full potential. Of course, if they are pushed too hard or in the wrong way they will burn out. It's finding the right balance. We are always complaining about how other countries have a leg-up on us in terms of education and top performing professionals, etc. If we took care of our brightest students properly from an early age and allowed them to soar at their own rate, I think you would see a large change in this discrepancy. You would also have more students as role models for the "average" students.

Absolutely not correct. Looking back to my classmates in the GT program in elementary/middle school, they are teachers, nurses, volunteers, office assistants, and some are in law school or graduate programs- exactly the same things the "ordinary" college prep students are doing with their lives. I'm getting more schooling than many who are MUCH brighter than me, and only because I found what I loved and that field happened to require more school.

 

[MdGymMom01]

I think that in today's society, aka the "trophy generation" or "entitled generation", there is so much emphasis on being "special" and "gifted and talented" is certainly one of them. Labeling is the big thing and it seems like normal or just average is unheard of or even derogatory nowadays. Kids as young as 5 and 6 are already being "tested" and specializing in a sport or activity. There is so much pressure and competition to be the best or the youngest at whatever sport they do. I am not sure what caused this shift in attitude and child rearing or when it really started, but it is so different from when I grew up as a child in the 60's and 70's.

I agree with the poster that said that everyone is gifted in some way and everyone's gifts should be praised and celebrated.

 

[thefellowsmom]

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?

Most people only think about the school work and that they can easily just be given more challenging work by their teacher and be done with it. There is so much more to it than that. I found this article (provided to us by our program, but I just found a link to it online) very helpful.

ParentFurther - FamilyEducation.comWhile looking for the article, I also found this information that also seemed relevant to the discussion.

Link Removed

I also feel we are very fortunate that we live in a district that offers great services to all of it's students and that is highly supported by the community we live in, both financially and with parent involvement. We just lost our state highly capable funding and this was a major concern for parents coming into the program, but they actually said that it had no bearing on the program and this is just another classroom and costs no more than any other classroom. We are also very fortunate that our program is run by an amazing internationally known highly capable teacher who teaches seminars for teachers all over the world.

As far as social opportunities and exposure to all parts of life, this doesn't change because they are in a highly capable classroom. She is in a school full of all kinds of kids, including 2 additional 2nd grade non-HICAP classes which they are totally integrated for recess, lunch and all school activities out of the classroom. Also, it's not like all high-cap kids automatically come from from upper-middle class families and are pretty and popular, or in any way homogeneous (that's ridiculous), there are kids of many races, cultures and socioeconomic statuses in her class and from what I can see her exposure to different personality types has increased dramatically. They also heavily emphasize learning to accept their own strengths and weaknesses and those of others and learning how to appreciate and utilize someone else's strength to balance your weakness. They address this directly in this program because these kids can be less tolerant of others and/or be so critical of themselves that they don't see their own value.

My own experience as a kid labeled gifted was really hard. My mom didn't think that I should have anything extra or different for many of the reasons that you lay out here. She actually told me that I should try to fit in so the kids would like me, after all, should would say, you are pretty, they will like you if you just try hard enough. She even kept me from skipping a grade when it was suggested that I do so. The result was that I was bored and have never in my life felt like anyone really understood me. By the time I was a teenager, I started acting out and skipping school because I could show up on test day and maintain my gpa. I ended up in a lot of trouble that I feel could have been avoided if I had had the resources and support that I needed.

I have also talked to my dad about this. He grew up in foster care and readily admits that without the gifted programs he was offered he very likely would have ended up on the streets or dead, rather than a highly decorated marine.

This is not a poor me story, although I will say it did influenced my decision to put her in the program, just an example of how these kids can fall through the cracks just as easily as kids on the other end of the spectrum.

I certainly feel that this and education on the whole is a huge issue in this country and that it is a tragedy that educating our children and respecting our teachers is terribly undervalued. Even in her highcap classroom, there are 28 kids because there isn't enough money to hire more teachers district wide.

I know I say this all the time in many different ways, but my goal is a parent is to treat my children as the individuals that they are and provide each one of them what is best for each of them, in every part of their lives and to foster their individual passions and help them with their individual struggles.

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.

 

[gymgal]

LOL I *knew* my comment would be pulled out of context. I never said that all scientists, doctors, etc are GT and I never said that all GT kids go on to these careers. And I certainly never implied either of these.

Look, I was a special education teacher for several years and am have been a speech pathologist for little ones for more than 10 yrs. I also homeschool 3 GT kids (all within the top 5% range for IQ and much higher in academics). I understand both sides of this argument very well.

My point was that in our current educational system, the brightest of our society are not given the chance to reach their full potential. Typical average kids and kiddos in special education are given the tools to reach their full potential but for some reason the system believes that kiddos in the GT range should either do it themselves or "settle" and be like their average peers. When we allow this to happen, we fail to tap their potential. We are letting them fall through the proverbial cracks.

Let me be clear, I am not talking about the majority of the students labeled GT in this country. As I said before, schools label way too many kids who can easily be challenged in regular classrooms if the curriculum is set up properly. I am talking the very high end of the curve - the top 2-5%. Kids who can't get what they need academically by staying with their same age average learning peers. These are kids that learn material in 1/4 to 1/2 the time as their peers and absorb material more deeply than their peers simply by being exposed to it. One would never expect a child learning at half the speed of his peers to remain at the same level academically but somehow we find that perfectly fine for kids who are the opposite end of the curve. That is foolishness.

 

[sally]

As a teenager you know the choices you make so if you make bad choices you can't blame being bored the reason. You could have gotten a book out to do the extra study if you wanted to, but you choose not to because you weren't interested in it at that time. I think some kids are interested in study and there is nothing wrong with challenging the child if that is what they enjoy. But I have seen time and time again kids being made by parents to do all this extra stuff outside of school just so they can get good marks and they are crying and fighting with their parents as they don't want to do it.

 

[gymgal]

Absolutely not correct. Looking back to my classmates in the GT program in elementary/middle school, they are teachers, nurses, volunteers, office assistants, and some are in law school or graduate programs- exactly the same things the "ordinary" college prep students are doing with their lives. I'm getting more schooling than many who are MUCH brighter than me, and only because I found what I loved and that field happened to require more school.

With all due respect (and no attitude implied), the statement is absolutely true and there is research to back it up. There is a higher percentage of high ability students entering these fields than would be expected considering their numbers in the regular population. And there is also a higher percentage of them in high level positions in their careers (bosses, lead researchers, head engineers, etc). Yes, everyone has anecdotal stories but the studies show the trends.

but that wasn't really my point anyway - My point related to these students being the great thinkers of our future. It doesn't matter if they go into teaching, business, culinary arts, etc. they tend to be the leaders in their fields. Of course, a lot depends on the level of giftedness and their experiences in school, which was my original point. And yes, you are going to find the brightest minds sometimes as a stay at home mom or a bus driver, or {fill in the blank}. We are talking trends, not absolutes. And no knocking stay-at-home moms (or dads). Teaching our young ones to be caring, respectful, self-sufficient, etc. members of society - there is no greater calling as far as I am concerned.

 

[gymgal]

But I have seen time and time again kids being made by parents to do all this extra stuff outside of school just so they can get good marks and they are crying and fighting with their parents as they don't want to do it.

yes, but these are not the kids we are talking about. The kids we are talking about don't need extra help to get good grades. they slide through school with hardly any work on their part. I know... I was one of them. I didn't barely studied until my senior year of high school when I took Calculus and even then I did very little. Most things just came easy for me, without studying.

 

[gymgal]

Just one more comment - I have really enjoyed this discussion. Regardless of which side you are on this debate, it's important to talk about all aspects of our education system. that is the only way to continue to improve it - for all students.

 

[sally]

No these kids I am talking about are not struggling they get vha's in everything but these parents want them to do more so they give them extra basically they do two grades higher at home and that I don't agree with as they don't want to do extra.

yes, but these are not the kids we are talking about. The kids we are talking about don't need extra help to get good grades. they slide through school with hardly any work on their part. I know... I was one of them. I didn't barely studied until my senior year of high school when I took Calculus and even then I did very little. Most things just came easy for me, without studying.

 

[Tumblequeensmom]

With all due respect (and no attitude implied), the statement is absolutely true and there is research to back it up. There is a higher percentage of high ability students entering these fields than would be expected considering their numbers in the regular population. And there is also a higher percentage of them in high level positions in their careers (bosses, lead researchers, head engineers, etc). Yes, everyone has anecdotal stories but the studies show the trends.

As an educated person, you KNOW that you can find research and studies to back up any position you choose to believe. Gymgal, I DO understand that you're talking about a very small percentage of kids testing in those extremely high ranges. I am also enjoying this discussion. I just see so many failures (as you mentioned) in our educational system. Many, many of our "labelled" average kids could do so much better. I HATE, HATE HATE these GT labels. Especially in my area. EVERYONE is high salary, high expectations, the kids are born with a sense of entitlement, etc. I know, I know... the same can be said for most parts of the country these days...

As to your comment that "I never said that all scientists, doctors, etc are GT," we may be arguing semantics, but: "One thing that I think people overlook when thinking about GT is that these kids (the top 5-10%) are our future scientists, doctors, philosophers, writers etc. These are the ones who have the potential to change the world in a big way. but in order to do that, they need to be in for the long haul in the academic world." Sure does imply that you think all those professions are filled by only "GT" individuals.

 

[Faith]

I too hate the labels. I think it's wrong to place categories on children, any child can achieve anything they want to, given the opportunity.

I think it's very rare you get a child that can't function in an ordinary school, and then isn't it a social issue, rather than an intelligence level? For me, I don't see the point of kids sitting exams or going to uni age 12, it just sets them further apart from their peers.

In the UK many schools have "vertical learning" so while the majority of class time is spent as an age group, for certain subjects, like maths, the years are mixed according to ability. So an able child will work with children a year or two older. In a way, it's like TOPS training, why take away a few potentials and coach them intensively- they should all be getting a fair education/doing the conditioning. And what message does it give those who aren't selected? That they're average and can't get good grades? (the message I got at school- you can't do career x as you won't get the grades).

I am odd in that I did OK at primary (age 5-11), near the top, but not at the top of my class. Secondary (11-18) I was distinctly average, did no work, but passed exams. I just didn't get it. When I got to Uni it was a revelation- I learn differently.

BTW nearly all the doctors I know/knew at uni are hard workers with good memories, who can learn facts and pass exams. None more gifted than those studying other subjects. I have know a great many talented, hard working people excelling in their careers, but once you get to adulthood being "gifted" isn't really relevant. Like gymnastics, you still need to work hard.

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. There's no rush- they don't allow 12 year olds to practice medicine or work in a lab.

 

[bogwoppit]

I loathe the labels gifted and talented as much as I loathe the labels dumb and lazy. When you label a child it immediately changes their life, and just because a label sounds positive it doesn't necessarily bring positive things to a child's life.

 

[jen1957]

This is an interesting thread! I don't have much of anything to add.
I will say that this topic has come up with our daughter quite a bit this year. She's in 3rd grade and has never been tested for being gifted. Her 2 best friends and a couple of her other friends are gifted. My daughter doesn't understand why they "get to go to the gifted class" and she doesn't, it's not that easy to explain. My daughter is bright, loves school and makes good grades. I know as her mom I'm biased, but I would guess that she either an extremely bright child or on the borderline of being gifted. Where we live, gifted elementary school kids are taken out of their regular class to go to a separate gifted class one day a week, personally I just don't see how beneficial that could really be. Not all students are tested here, only the ones that are recommended for testing by their teacher or whose parents press for testing.

 

[monkeysmom]

I agree with the labeling

I agree with the "public labeling" aversion. My daughter has no idea that she is in the "gifted" cluster, I know it because I have talked to the teachers about it. They do have a more formalized "G&T" program as they get older, I also don't like that label. However, I am completely 100% in favor of the clustering and making more challenging learning available to students who need it. The clustering is for all students, and the goal is to maximize the learning for every student. EVERY student should have the right to learn and be challenged at school on a daily basis.

This is oversimplifying it, since there are different clusters for mathing, reading etc. But to give you an idea, let's say there are 15 types of learners. If a teacher has one or two of each kind of learner, guess who is benefiting? Only the middle or average learners and the special education kids who get extra resources. If a teacher gets three types of clusters, they are better able to focus their teaching and maximize the learning potential for all students. Differentiated learning is more fair to each and every student. Some of the day is everyone doing the same thing and some of the day is differentiated learning, where through the same types of activities, kids can learn more at their own pace and be challenged. I think last year, my daughter's class had the high acheivers cluster, the english as a second language cluster and one or two others.

When I was in elementary school there were no "G&T" opportunities available and they didn't have this type of clustering. I was the youngest kid in my class. In second grade I was sent to fourth grade for reading. Socially, talk about ackward. I hated it. My memory of class time in elementary school is excruciating boredom. I loved to read, got top scores. I hated school. It was excruciated and I rarely felt challenged and excited in the classroom. I remember watching the clock tick tick tick by just waiting for the class or the day to be done. I would finish my test first, and then sit there. Doing nothing, or maybe a little activity by myself. I would finish the in-school work first. Then sit there. Bored. Tick tock tick tock tick tock. Be quiet don't talk to your friends sit there bored. Tick tick tick tock. Seriously that's my main memory from elementary school. I didn't start liking school until high school and college. I couldn't wait for bell to ring to could at least get on the bus and talk to my friends and go home to do something fun.


In high school I participated in one of those programs where you can take college courses. I went part time to a very challenging private school in my home town. I really liked those classes, loved learning from the professors. I know some people are really opposed to those programs (including my sister), but I'm not. They were a breath of fresh air for me. In high school there were also more challenging math and science classes etc. which I liked. I wasn't a total nerd, I participated in music and athletics and enjoyed those. I had friends. But I think my elementary school years would have been so much more fun and more happy if I had been in a program like my daughter's school. They also have a huge focus on respect and school community which is cool--they give out various awards/drawings when you show good school spirit (i.e., are kind and responsible). So the labeling thing--I get that and I agree with it. But a thoughtful approach to putting the classes together and learning activities, that is more fair to everyone. Wish they had done it for me back when the dinosaurs were roaming the earth!!!

PS, guess who does clustered learning? Every day. Gymnastics gyms. Everything is leveled based on your skills and/or potential, right? Class levels, team levels, etc. I can't say that I think it's perfect or that the right kids are always getting selected to see what they can acheive with a little more training. But hey it is certainly clustered learning!

 

[coachmolly]

I am odd in that I did OK at primary (age 5-11), near the top, but not at the top of my class. Secondary (11-18) I was distinctly average, did no work, but passed exams. I just didn't get it. When I got to Uni it was a revelation- I learn differently.

The exact same thing happened to me in school. Because I had been given the "gifted" label at 8 years old, teachers had no idea why I appeared one way on my school records but still faced challenges in the classroom. I also had a lot of other stuff going on in my mind that impacted my learning, but my teachers go so frustrated with me and I felt like I was letting them down and just plain dumb for not being able to hack it in their classes. When I got to college it was a world of difference and my college GPA was several points higher than it was in HS. Even in classes that had given me so much difficulty in high school (math and chemistry especially), I felt like I could actually keep up. I still had struggles, but it was such an eye opener to be able to learn in a way that best suited me and take classes and work with professors that best met my abilities and needs.

I loathe the labels gifted and talented as much as I loathe the labels dumb and lazy. When you label a child it immediately changes their life, and just because a label sounds positive it doesn't necessarily bring positive things to a child's life.

This is absolutely true. While I think some labels are absolutely necessary to ensuring individuals get the best possible care and interventions, I think as a society we have gone over the top. I was labeled as a 3rd grade and from about 5th grade on felt like a "gifted fraud." If I were so gifted, why I did a struggle with things the "average" kids did not? Why did my teachers get so frustrated with me? Why was I getting "demoted" to average classes at 11 years old? And how on earth could they have messed up so badly to call me gifted when, in reality, I was a complete idiot. Because that's exactly how I felt. Is being able to brag about your kid being advanced or gifted really worth all of that? I know my experience isn't the norm, but it's a very real risk when you label a child, either positively or negatively. Likewise, I've seen really sweet, bright kids who are labeled as "troublemakers" from early on and do everything in their power to live up to that image among adults and peers. You can see hints of their gifts, but heaven forbid they let those show and run the risk of losing their label!

 

[monkeysmom]

I have not seen bragging at our school

I have not seen parents at school bragging about their kids being in the G&T program. In fact, it's the opposite here, it's taboo to even speak to other parents about your kid being in the "gifted and talented" program (unless you're talking to the parent of another kid in the same group). But I live in the Midwest, so that could be a regional thing. There are lots of things we don't talk about around here. I think the whole point is that all kids should get the opportunity to be challenged at school. It would certainly help if they would use different words/language. I like "differentiated learning" because it applies to every child, and the point is to help every student to do their best.

 

[Krystan]

PS, guess who does clustered learning? Every day. Gymnastics gyms. Everything is leveled based on your skills and/or potential, right? Class levels, team levels, etc. I can't say that I think it's perfect or that the right kids are always getting selected to see what they can acheive with a little more training. But hey it is certainly clustered learning!

ITA! I really think ideally everyone would learn each subject at their own pace, just like gymnasts (generally) are moved up when they're ready, not because they are a certain age or because they need to "learn to fit in" with their peers. That's a major reason why we homeschool. Each child is in a different grade in each subject, and when they get together at co-op or with their many friends (no, you don't have to go to school to have friends), nothing is based on labels or what group you're in at school. Even age and grade don't really matter, just like in gymnastics. My dd is very ahead in some subjects, and a bit behind in one, but she doesn't even know it. She's learning at her own pace so she is constantly challenged. I sympathize with those who were bored in school because that was me! I realize a lot of that is not really possible in a school setting, and I completely abhor the G&T label, but I really think individualized curriculum should happen to a certain extent.

 

[MayDay]

There are alot of really interesting points that have been brought up.


We are currently waiting on the results from our daughter's testing. We are only using the testing as a guide for which type of schooling we will choose. I do not know anything about the gifted programs in our school systems, but depending on the results we will be opened to more options. We are not even sure if we will be homeschooling yet. I agreed to the testing because I thought it could help us as parents understand her a little better.

 

[thefellowsmom]

As a teenager you know the choices you make so if you make bad choices you can't blame being bored the reason. You could have gotten a book out to do the extra study if you wanted to, but you choose not to because you weren't interested in it at that time.

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.

 

[Faith]

As a teenager you know the choices you make so if you make bad choices you can't blame being bored the reason. You could have gotten a book out to do the extra study if you wanted to, but you choose not to because you weren't interested in it at that time. I think some kids are interested in study and there is nothing wrong with challenging the child if that is what they enjoy.

I'd just like to pick up on this too

For me as a teenager it wasn't as simple as "getting a book out". I didn't know where to look or what books to get. All I knew about education I learned in school, I didn't even know where to start with further reading. The school and local library only had standard texts and fiction, and no Internet in those days.

The questions I asked in school the teachers couldn't answer. Occasionally there'd be a teacher I "got" and I'd do really well. Sometimes the teachers would be honest and admit they didn't know. Usually they'd just be defensive and behave like I was an annoyance, and if I didn't get what they were teaching, it was my stupidity, not that I needed to approach it from another angle.

My mum was a widow who'd left school at 14, so no support at home. If I couldn't get what they were teaching me in school, why would I seek out more advanced work?

When I said university was a revelation, it wasn't that the work was more challenging, or harder. It was simply I was given the tools to learn how I learned. Lectures were the basic overview, then we were told where to look for more information, libraries, literature searching, theses, peer reviewed journals. And we were taught what to look for and how to read it. I could go away and read everything about a subject, and understand it completely. I use those skills every day, a very rarely do anything without thoroughly researching it first.

Also a revelation was exam technique, essay structure, and really simple stuff like that.

All this we could teach all children, empower them to seek out knowledge and learn as they learn best, with teachers as guides.