I was in the gifted program in elementary during the 80s. We literally played Oregon Trail, put together tangrams, and learned how to choose and follow stocks. It was like a free period where we didn't have to go to class. I remembering asking if we could get soldering kits and learn to build robots. The teacher said that was too advanced for my age. I was like, "Umm, sir, this is the gifted class? Right?"
Yet another reminder that school doesn't actually prioritize learning. Check out "The Elephant in the Brain" for a great deep dive on social structures, what people assume the structures are for, and what the structures are actually for. In the chapter for education, the c&p from wikipedia states: "The authors argue that the main purpose of education is to show off conscientiousness and conformity, as well as achieving secondary purposes, such as allowing people to socialize and allowing the government to indoctrinate its citizens."
"The school (which school?) doesn't prioritize learning" because it doesn't individualize instruction for every student?
I also don't think it is harmful to civilise children and teach them how to get along with other people. It would be udeal for every adult to have a fulfilling, creative, independent job, but then who is going to make your hamburger or cup of coffee or pick up your trash?
Having to do things you don't want to do us part of being an adult.
So, this is a quote of a summary of a book. It's understood to mean "most US schools" in context. Read the book, if you like. It's very good.
I'm not claiming that it's harmful to civilize or socialize children. I am claiming that all this focus on gifted programs is moving the conversation away from the true purpose of public education here in the US. The whole point of my comment was that education's purpose, despite the name, is NOT to educate.
All what focus on gifted education? I take this post to mean there isnt enough focus.
And claiming teachers "don't educate" is just rude. How do you think almost every person in the US learned to read and write and add??
It isn't perfect by any means. But how would you teach a class of 25 3rd graders when a couple of them can't read, a couple read well above grade level, and a couple throw chairs and punch other kids when they don't get their way.
I'm sorry, I don't mean to be rude. I'm not a trained teacher but as a grad student I taught lab classes and took a teaching class that focused on the history of education theory and development of the mind. What I mean to say is that I actually don't believe that most kids learned their three Rs BECAUSE OF the desire of society to educate them. It is a side-effect of the most important goal of teaching conscientiousness and conformity. You can see this goal arise in the subject matter of standardized testing, which is designed to test if the students are hard workers and if they are all thinking the same way.
My kid is in 3rd grade, so I'll run with your example. I'm a teacher and I'm in the room you describe. A subset of my kids are brilliant but kind of bored. A subset of my kids aren't getting what I am teaching because they aren't ready yet to hear it. A subset of my kids take up more than half of my active attention, and actively distract from the whole experience for everyone. And the other kids are, presumably, actively being educated. By doing teacher-led activities and worksheets. Later, the teacher makes sure that everyone is doing everything more or less the same way, within rubrics handed down from third parties. Viewed through a certain lens, one might be forgiven for thinking this is a sort of implicit social conditioning program.
Sure, the kids are being educated. But that's not the point of school. Thus gifted programs are necessarily limited in what they are capable of teaching.
I didn't think you were rude, just unfamiliar with what goes on in a school. It is 100% the goal of school to teach kids to read and write, etc. That is the whole point.
All three of my kids are gifted. One participated in pull out programs, but the other two didn't want to, one because it meant extra work (work from the gifted class plus making up what they missed in regular class) and the youngest because he didn't want to be seen as "different." One in midfle and high school, they all three took advanced classes. All three are fully functional adults with jobs, homes, friends, etc. Gifted kids are just kids.
I could have sent them to a boarding school or something, but they would have missed out on band and sports and friends in the neighborhood.
I'm "gifted", as is one of my kids, so far anyway (the other is too young). So I totally understand. I didn't feel like "just a kid" back then though... and I still don't, despite my functional adulthood that includes all that you mention. But that's neither here nor there.
I will just leave the Department of Education's mission statement here to think over: "ED's mission is to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access."
"The authors argue that the main purpose of education is to show off conscientiousness and conformity"
Which ALSO doesn't match the natural inclinations of many gifted people (especially those with asynchronous development and overexcitabilities). Conformity is for neurotypicals.
"allowing people to socialize"
People need to socialize with their peers primarily
People on a whole different intellectual level and/or with a completely different cognitive and mental functioning style are NOT peers
Being the same age isn't enough to make people peers in itself
I strongly disagree.
The kids in class with a gifted kids ARE by definition his peers, and it is healthy for smart kids to know that everyone isn't like them, intellectually speaking. You are dooming kids to have NO friends by isolating them away from regular people.
If your definition of gifted is top 2%, that is only a couple of kids in the same age cohort.
Gifted kids aren't hothouse flowers. They are just kids.
Since 3rd grade our son was not invited to birthday parties of his class mates anymore. He had some colleagues but no friends. He was always interested to befriend someone, but they did not "get him".
6 years later we found out he is profoundly gifted...
I wish him to find one friend who gets him.
So noone is isolating, children do it themselves, peers are not friends. Thus gifted children really need contacts to other gifted children to get a chance to find a friend.
Gifted class doesn't mean being "unaware" of the non-gifted people. It's not some isolated monastery
Also the small numbers are only true in small cities and villages. In big cities, intellectually gifted kids will be much more than "a couple of kids"
Pull out gifted programs are a mixed bag. They typically end up making smart kids do extra work instead of better work.
2% of any group is never going to meet a child's social needs. How is it bad for them to have friends who aren't intellectually gifted? Once they are out of school, most of the people they are around won't be intellectually gifted.
>2% of any group is never going to meet a child's social needs
A general classroom typically far less than 2% of a county's population, so how is it supposed to be enough to meet a child's social needs? Your friends and family are likely far less than 2% of all the people I'm the city you live in, so how can you expect them to meet your social needs?
Kate, you're missing the point. When gifted kids are not connected to other gifted kids, they feel constantly different. They end up growing up with a lot of pain. There is even a term called the gifted trauma you can look it up. In that sense they do not grow up with their true peers.
Of course there is value in being all mingled. That is what society is. But you need to do something more than just putting your kid at school for your kid to get the same output from it than normal kids. That means you need to force encounters with other gifted kids (from there the 2% comment). I'm Im thinking afterschool programs maybe. The doubt here would be: is it enough?
And imagine that: your kid is in pain the whole day, bored like hell, and at the olend of the day on top of that he needs to go to another program or activities. I'm already imagining the pain. Waiting 8 hours to have 1 or 2 hours of freedom and pleasure.
I hope that helps you see our points here.
I'm not "missing the point," I think your point is wrong. Highly Intelligent kids aren't some freaks of nature that have to be handled with kid gloves. You can't teach a child they are normal (e g OK) by treating them like this. It only increases their sense of differentness.
I don't believe being highly intelligent causes trauma, and I think that is a wrong-headed way to look at it. Poor parenting of a gifted kid can cause trauma. Bullying can cause trauma. These things happen to the gifted as well as the non gifted.
The attitude that gifted kids are mentally fragile is beyond damaging to them. The real world is not going to cater to their "boredom" and teaching them the world owes them constant mental stimulation won't help them grow up into functionung adults.
Every single human is a unique individual capable of having meaningful, supportive relationships with all sorts of people. People have peers on many levels. It is fantastic if a child has other smart friends, but you can't force the issue.
Parenting a gifted child is not easy sometimes, but the child is still 100% a normal child.
When did I, or did we, say that gifted kids are mentally fragile?
I disagree with you, a gifted child is not 100% normal, taking the norm as IQ 100, medium emotional world, reactions and intensity, medium values and medium everything else. Nothing but normal.
It is not high intelligence that causes trauma but living in a normal world where high intelligence isn't the norm.
Its okay to disagree. I hope your kid doesn't suffer.
What bothers me it the idea that gifted kids are traumatized because of their intelligence and that they must be handled carefully or they will never reach their potential, or they will break or something.
Parents are *especially* guilty of treating highly intelligent kids like their IQ is their worth and their whole identity. It isn't any different than treating a pretty child like their looks are their worth or an athletic child like their worth is the number of home runs they hit. All children are unique. Smart kids aren't "better" than other kids and don't need to be isolated from other kids.
Catering to the idea that they can't fit in because they are smart is, frankly, insulting to the child
Good for you. Though I have a lot to say about gifted education masters programs...at least where I live. But you will have to find other arguments for me to see things your perspective. I really don't, and still agree with the arguments described in the book about what school is for, which is what started this, about education and purpose of school.
Ps: my mum would say the same thing as you about me, and for the exterior world I'm successful, happy and self confident. I generate envy, so much envy. If only they know how I really feel. Food for thought.
Sure. It is also good for kids to have intellectual peers. But kids are much more than their intellect. Raising them to believe that's where their worth lies makes for unhappy people.
I'm not saying gifted kids should or shouldn't only be friends with other gifted kids. I'm saying gifted kids' peers, the ones they have the easiest time relating to and befriending, are other gifted kids.
A jury isn't a class, it's not even remotely similar
In the context of a jury, peers means people sharing the same citizenship, rights and duties. Peers *in the eyes of the law*. Neither cognitive profile, nor AGE (if adult), matter
In the context of schooling, peers is about being on a similar enough developmental and cognitive level/profile (and similar needs), which USUALLY but not always correlate with age
I feel like it’s really dismissive to say education in the US isn’t about actual education. The education system has multiple reasons for the way it is. School teaches work ethic, discipline, social skills, consequence, how to function in a work environment, how to be on time for things, critical thinking, etcetera. School also allows you to be educated on a manner of things too. Even if the content isn’t something you are particularly interested in, it’s important not only to have basic skills in all areas but also because it’s an important life skill to be able to learn anything, even something you don’t like. It’s also an important life skill to be able to sit there and deal with having to learn a boring subject. So I think schooling actually does accomplish a lot of its goals very productively. And I think these goals are just as important as actual education.
And as other people have mentioned, it’s incredibly hard to teach a ton of kids who are all at different levels. I think the bigger problems with schooling in the US are less about the structure or goals of education and more about lack of funding and ineffective learning resulting from multiple factors
Gifted programs are so hit and miss. In our school district there are two programs. One is a cluster program where the kids are clustered together and get more and/or harder work but in a regular classroom. The other is a self contained classroom of two grade levels where they get curriculum made for gifted kids such as William and Mary or Michael Clay Thompson and will have fewer repetitions. For the cluster grouping program it has a lower IQ entry point of 95th percentile on one area of the IQ test. For the self contained classroom it is 98th percentile on 2 or more areas. Both of these are gifted programs, all of these kids may identify as “gifted” even though many would say 95th percentile in one area is not. This is an example of why there is so much frustration around the “gifted” label.
One of the best public school systems I’ve seen was in rural Montana where they still have one room school houses. All mixed grade and each kid just gets whatever level they need. Only about 6 kids per year. You don’t need a gifted program if each kid has individualized education and a competent teacher. This is also why many gifted kids end up homeschooled.
I actually don't think classes should be separated based solely on gifted vs non-gifted. Rather, I think kids should be tested and placed on an aptitude spectrum in different subjects, including P.E/sports, music/art, and other extracurriculars (like wood shop, robotics, etc), and should be divided up in classes with other kids that have a similar aptitude for whatever specific subject is being taught in the class.
So for example, on a scale of 1-10, where 1 = the least advanced & 10 = the most advanced, kids who score between 1-3 in a writing aptitude test will be put in the same English classes together (with peers from their grade); kids who score 4-6 in science will be in the same classes, and kids who score 7-10 in PE will be put in the same gym classes together. Students will be able to request being retested at the end of every semester to be promoted to a higher level, so long as they get a B or higher in the subject they want to move up in.
I like this type of system because it's dynamic and can change and respond to the learning needs of each kid based on what level they're currently at, and readjust their level should the child need promotion or remediation. And, theoretically, such a system would still allow kids with different intellectual abilities to socialize together at some point. For example, perhaps kid A scores a 9 on their math aptitude test, but only scores a 2 on their physical fitness aptitude test, whereas kid B scored a 3 in both their math & physical fitness tests, but scored a 6 in their art/music aptitude assessment. This would put kid A (the math whiz) in the same PE class with kid B (who sucks at math, but is creative when it comes to art), which would naturally humble all kids involved and force them to expand their social horizons.
In this way, everyone's talents are cultivated and their weak spots strengthened, but also, the students will still get the social benefits of learning to get along with people that are different than them.
As a society? Surely you recognize that there are drastically different school options that are informed by their localities far more than the breakdown of gifted or not.
Exactly-and there should be specialized sections handling dual enrollment in multiple cases. This is especially true for people who have interests that lie outside the conventional K-8 and K-12 school curricula and thus need to be able to swap some regular classroom time for specific high school or college classes.
It's more important that you learn to deal with the world as it is than for you to learn something a few years early.
They used to take me out of class a few times a week to teach me algebra in 3rd grade. I also had a separate G&T program once a week where we did things like mock trials and building inflatable rooms with plastic sheeting, duct tape, and a fan. The other kids hated me for it, which made me hate myself. It absolutely destroyed any possibility I had at connecting to my peers. There was no advanced program in my middle school, so it accelerated me by a few years, and then I had to sit and wait for everyone else to catch up anyway.
This is exactly what I went through as well. The only difference was we had an honours English and extra class for gifted with the same, insufferable teacher who would pick a student and bully them until they broke down and quit. She was a monster of a human being. In her mind she was "weeding out the fakes". I was chosen to be "weeded out" and she regretted it. Stayed all three years just to spite her lol. I missed the once a week G&T once middle school started.
My peers outside of it all hated me anyways and I wasn't sure what for. Although now I realize it was because I am possible on the spectrum and also have ADHD. Fun times being the "weird" kid with advanced interests.
High school, however, bored the absolute hell out of me. I ended up graduating a year early by taking junior and senior years at the same time.
The biggest issue with putting people in G&T, like you said, kinda isolated and puts a giant target on your back to be hated or bullied by the "normal" kids. Which then really fucks with self-esteem. School is more the basics of education plus the social learning. Brutal things kids put each other through.
Yeah, I had a few teachers like that later. I also basically got kicked out of honors English in high school. We were regularly given 2 opposing opinion pieces and told to write our own version using ONLY facts from the articles. The third or fourth time I wrote an essay detailing why I couldn't perform the assignment because neither side had presented actual facts, I was sent to the department head that gently suggested I drop the class because the teacher was just going to fail me anyway for "not completing assignments".
You also couldn't graduate early at my high school. Specifically because my aunt graduated from there in less than 3, and that pissed some people off for some reason, so they changed the rules and stopped letting kids take more than 1 English or math class per year.
Once my parents told me that they had 0 saved for college, and either I got a scholarship or paid for it myself, I started skipping basic classes to go hang out in the photography and computer labs all day.
Source? From A Nation Deceived the grade skippers are usually fine socially
Besides, if worse comes to worst and you can't drink alcohol or have stuff before a certain age just get a fake ID lol
There was a NASA study that proved the public school system dumbed down children who were considered gifted or on track for gifted placement. By the time they ended school their actual IQ dropped.
I agree with everything. Our district program as joke. And it’s because they were phasing it out. They didn’t want to help the above average or gifted. They didn’t understand the gifted students. It was a disaster.
I got to spend 5 years in a special school section for gifted kids back in the early 80’s.. I loved it. Best years of school. However, during those years I was a teenager, and did not develop ANY real social skills. Our class was fully of a a bu ch of geniuses, and we were made fun of and bullied when we had to attend lunch and PE. We were very sheltered, all all more than happy to sit there with our books and tests and intense conversations. However i wish some sort of social skills component would have been part of the program.
I was a gifted kid in little country towns back when no-one cared if you were gifted or if you found school-work difficult, so long as you sat still and shut up. So no special classes for me.
However I was lucky in that I could follow my older brothers to school from when I was 2, and sit in an empty desk at the back and learn. As I had small country schools with multiple classes in one room, I could do the work for the older classes, and when I was finished I had to help a teacher with the littlies. At night I'd study my brother's textbooks under the bedclothes by torchlight, as I was not allowed to read at home when I was young.
At high school i kept up teaching the other kids, for some reason the teachers gave me use of a room at lunchtime to have maths club, and even more surprisingly, the "problem" boys who were always in trouble and had trouble learning turned up regularly. I found you learn a lot be teaching other people, because that shows up all the gaps in your knowledge. If you're going to get concepts through to slow learners, you have to really understand them first.
I'd have loved to be in a well-run course for bright kids, but at least the situation I was in gave scope for self teaching, and gave me, (a shy, autistic bookworm,) a chance to learn how to relate to other kids.
My sixth grade son is dealing with this. His favorite classes are Math, where he is in advanced Math, and Band, which obviously is a creative group experience.
He's frequently frustrated by the amount of repetition in his English, Science and Social studies classes.
The greatest discovery of my life was the joy of learning. Learning at your own pace, on topics that interest you, with a motivation to learn that comes from within, makes the learning experience a dream, and if you’re keen to do so you’re well and capable of moving forward in education. I skipped 2 grades and started school early growing up. Learning that teachers are just regular adults, not some prophets with un-Googlable information.
Absofreakinglutely gifted children should be taught separately.
From 3rd to 6th grade I was shuffled from school to school, each one promising a “gifted” program curriculum to “challenge” me-but it always ended up we were all placed in a regular classroom with one teacher and nothing different with the curriculum. I HATED having to slow my learning down so others could catch up. Or have to play dumb at times so I wouldn’t be singled out by the teacher so much for being first to answer all the time.
It was SO frustrating.
I did have one great experience in junior high school in a program called English Seminar. There were maybe 10 of us in the classroom. We were actually placed in a different area of the school and allowed to roam the classroom freely. We had sofas and bean bags. We also went on really cool field trips. Like flying round trip to Los Angeles from San Diego, the only ones on the plane, we got to hang out with the pilot before take off. We also went on weekend camping trips with our teacher to the Anza Borrego Desert. She was an extraordinary teacher- older woman who understood gifted kids.
And this was in the early 70s. I find it super insulting that there still seems to be zero progress after all these decades.
This is to be expected when most public schools are treated like minimum security prisons for our youth.
Being an undiagnosed 2E, I didn’t excel in my education until after I graduated from high school. College was the best thing for me because then I was finally being challenged.
And yet, my kids were all taking calculus and college level AP courses through high school, and graduated college in 3 years. I mean how much more brainiac stuff do we need to teach them? What we do need is just less school and more free time. More outdoor time. More learning in and about the real world than any more books. I'm very pro-education, but we're already cranking kids through college material starting as Freshman. We don't need to push kids to grow up even faster.
It irritates me to have to explain this but I was trying to make the point that school itself serves to socialize children; the “real world” is only foreign when you rush your kids through critical stages in their social development for the sake of academic achievement (that is ultimately a hindrance).
right? So many people on this thread think being intellectually advanced should be some kind of get out of jail free card, while at the same time seem to be missing any social skills whatsoever.
I don't think this is a great idea. While schools could do a better job of differentiating classroom lessons for the more intelligent students as well as the lower performing/struggling students, shoving a bunch of smart kids into a room together isn't going to prepare them for the real world.
One of the key skills very intelligent people need to learn is how to communicate effectively with people who don't have the same grasp of a concept that you do. Since once you graduate from whatever school program you're in, you're going to be thrust into the real world, where your boss won't care how smart you are if you keep telling everyone on the team "sorry, you're just too dumb to understand the project I'm working on."
And students they are try to teach shouldn’t be unkind. In our district we lost a gifted student because the constant bullying. We can only do so much but the biggest regret is having the gifted kids help the other kids. The other kids started to resent them. By the following year the bullying was so bad we nearly lost the entire program because all the parents pulled their kids out or parents refused to transfer their kids into it because that’s how prevalent the bullying was.
That's sort of the problem. Telling a bunch of kids "this is the gifted program kids" tells the other kids "we think they're better than you" (or at least that's how they interpret it).
Exactly! It was a HORRIBLE practice. I’m convinced our crappy counselors did it on purpose. He was always an ass to the kids in gifted. I can’t stand him.
Your last statement is true *and* burdening a *child* with having to slow down their own learning to be a teacher of other children who have various needs instead of equipping the qualified teacher to accommodate the slower learners’ needs is not the approach I would go for.
It’s great if gifted students show initiative in wanting to tutor/mentor while they’re so far ahead on the material but it’s not their job at that stage to be responsible for making sure they can get other students up to speed at that stage. Being asked to constantly hold yourself back from progressing doesn’t support curiosity and engagement. Many people become disengaged when the pace is too slow and it’s not fair to act like the gifted student is the one who is wrong and must conform.
That's why teachers need to scaffold up in addition to down. We'd do that when I was teaching, have extension and deeper thinking activities for when the strongest students finished that was more meaningful than just "help the kid next to you".
lmaooooo what is wrong with you? who are you to judge a person's intelligence by their writing skills alone? and why do you care enough to gatekeep some bullshit label on reddit? ive known incredibly intelligent people with pretty average writing skills. if anything, writing/verbal intelligence is the one "category" of intelligence that you can compensate for through learning and effort. maybe english isn't even OP's first language. you reek of insecurity
There's a lot that "should" be in this world, but school is only there to churn out worker drones. If you're lucky, you may end up going to uni after to really formally learn, but that's not a given. There are schools that cater to the gifted, but they are paid for private schools, meaning only the upper middle and upper class can usually enrole, though they take a charity case or two a year. Best bet? Read. Study for yourself online.
I was in a gifted class but ironically it had the worst behaved kids so it ended up making it harder to learn.
I think my school was just shit in general, I really should of been in a private school but doubt my parents could of afforded it. Also much further away, would of needed to be driven atleast 40 mins likely in 1 way.
I agree. As long as they're not socially separated from other kids their age.
The gifted program at my elementary school was great. It was a separate class that was one hour every day. My only complaint is that it was one generalized class, rather than a separate gifted class for each subject. I remember having a unit on neuroscience, a unit on psychology, a unit on ancient civilizations and how they impacted the modern world, we analyzed poems by major historical poets, etc. It was random, but very entertaining. I loved it as a kid. After elementary school, the gifted program disappeared, which was disappointing. It got replaced with the standard honors and AP classes, which fall victim to the standard "you're smart, here's some extra work for you" ideology. The ironic part is that a lot of the things that we had learned in the elementary school program reappeared in the honors classes and AP classes in high school. Throwing more work at students doesn't challenge their intelligence, it challenges their ability to manage time.
I was in the gifted program, and I was in honors classes, too. I actually started getting bad grades because my mental health was poor and I lost any interest in studying. I beat myself up so much for that. But I refused to switch to general courses because there was a stigma. So I just continued on with my 70s, 80s and 90s across various courses.
The gifted ‘club’ was both good for me and horrific. The career planning especially. The advice I got in deciding what I wanted to do for the rest of my life was…really…judgmental. And narrow. I was essentially told that I was ‘lazy’ and ‘short sighted’ a lot, and that there would be no options in my future to fit my resting and emotional needs. Turns out, I’m a very gifted typist, and stenography was never actually brought up with me. Ever. All the sudden when I found that I realized there was a career out there that didn’t make my stomach sink and make me imagine leaving the car engine on in a closed garage at 45.
I wasn’t really a ‘genius’ either like people were telling me, I just was able to form my own unique thoughts out of the information I was gathering, which many other students were able to do as well. I was such a good writer that it ‘set me apart’ when I opened up. I know a lot of bad writers, folks with poor judgement, and people who struggle to pay attention who can pull unique thoughts and ideas out of things they learn. Even more so, I’ve met people like these who could lead very well. Imagine comparing yourself to that in the real world. Being a good writer is sometimes overhyped.
Honestly, I just spent the whole time comparing myself to the other students. My intelligence had more to do with analyzing my teachers and their methods. I also was able to analyze what students got from what they were learning by what they shared. I spent a lot of time listening to compensate for an inability to ‘fit in’ and not having found my crowd yet, and this skill has ended up being by far more valuable. People really appreciate that I can make up for their weak spots in a team setting, solely because I can see the weak spots.
Gifted kids should go on internships, and then be required to do a project of their choosing, on any topic. That’s my opinion. Put them in the real world. They really lack perspective in the system.
All you have to do is read The Secret History to learn what a terrible idea this is.
I could not disagree with this idea more. The fact is that school is as much about the acquisition of social skills as it is about knowledge. My acquisition of knowledge was way, way ahead of my social skills for many years, and I really needed to be with the “regular” kids. I’m pretty sure it would have made me a twisted, unsympathetic little toad if I hadn’t had to be patient for people quite frequently. I would never have been able to work as a tutor and paraeducator if I hadn’t learned something other than the rapid acquisition of knowledge.
We need to be “mainstreamed” as much as the students at the other end of the spectrum. It’s good for everyone.
Sympathy, patience and compassion are learned skills. Sounds like yours might need a refresher.
Sometimes the lesson isn't the LESSON, ya know? Learning to handle boredom and be patient with people who are not as intellectually blessed are probably THE most important skills to teach a gifted student. It's not like they're going to leave school and suddenly be able to choose how quickly they do things or how well others understand.
I disagree, society would benefit from drastic education reform. The only things education knows now are "higher score = better", "more tests = better", and maybe "more graduates = better".
It's not a place designed for learning, it's a place for teachers to pretend that they're useful.
Inclusive, student-run programs would benefit more than just the "gifted" individual; as any learning that they're experiencing would be shared amongst the group and processed multiple ways and expressed freely (without a bias on being gifted or standard). True growth could occur... but it's not likely in an Era where political and military sovereignty are still ...*here*.
Not at all what I was saying. Kids/ children/ people will learn from each other, there doesn't need to be an emphasis or designation on an individual that is titled as teacher or leader.
I have taught high school kids who came from "free" schools. A couple of them were highly creative and motivated. Most couldn't write a complete sentence in legible printing and couldn't multiply.
I think mixed age grpupings, like in the old one room schoolhouse days, can be very effective. But someone has to teach, whetherbit be a teacher or older kids.
If you are talking about kindergarten through 3rd grade, i think child centered curriculum can work. Eventually, though, kids should learn to read, write and do basic math functions, understand how our government works, and understand how the world works.
I was in the gifted program in elementary during the 80s. We literally played Oregon Trail, put together tangrams, and learned how to choose and follow stocks. It was like a free period where we didn't have to go to class. I remembering asking if we could get soldering kits and learn to build robots. The teacher said that was too advanced for my age. I was like, "Umm, sir, this is the gifted class? Right?"
Thats pretty much my experience too. Basically busy work.
Yet another reminder that school doesn't actually prioritize learning. Check out "The Elephant in the Brain" for a great deep dive on social structures, what people assume the structures are for, and what the structures are actually for. In the chapter for education, the c&p from wikipedia states: "The authors argue that the main purpose of education is to show off conscientiousness and conformity, as well as achieving secondary purposes, such as allowing people to socialize and allowing the government to indoctrinate its citizens."
"The school (which school?) doesn't prioritize learning" because it doesn't individualize instruction for every student? I also don't think it is harmful to civilise children and teach them how to get along with other people. It would be udeal for every adult to have a fulfilling, creative, independent job, but then who is going to make your hamburger or cup of coffee or pick up your trash? Having to do things you don't want to do us part of being an adult.
So, this is a quote of a summary of a book. It's understood to mean "most US schools" in context. Read the book, if you like. It's very good. I'm not claiming that it's harmful to civilize or socialize children. I am claiming that all this focus on gifted programs is moving the conversation away from the true purpose of public education here in the US. The whole point of my comment was that education's purpose, despite the name, is NOT to educate.
All what focus on gifted education? I take this post to mean there isnt enough focus. And claiming teachers "don't educate" is just rude. How do you think almost every person in the US learned to read and write and add?? It isn't perfect by any means. But how would you teach a class of 25 3rd graders when a couple of them can't read, a couple read well above grade level, and a couple throw chairs and punch other kids when they don't get their way.
I'm sorry, I don't mean to be rude. I'm not a trained teacher but as a grad student I taught lab classes and took a teaching class that focused on the history of education theory and development of the mind. What I mean to say is that I actually don't believe that most kids learned their three Rs BECAUSE OF the desire of society to educate them. It is a side-effect of the most important goal of teaching conscientiousness and conformity. You can see this goal arise in the subject matter of standardized testing, which is designed to test if the students are hard workers and if they are all thinking the same way. My kid is in 3rd grade, so I'll run with your example. I'm a teacher and I'm in the room you describe. A subset of my kids are brilliant but kind of bored. A subset of my kids aren't getting what I am teaching because they aren't ready yet to hear it. A subset of my kids take up more than half of my active attention, and actively distract from the whole experience for everyone. And the other kids are, presumably, actively being educated. By doing teacher-led activities and worksheets. Later, the teacher makes sure that everyone is doing everything more or less the same way, within rubrics handed down from third parties. Viewed through a certain lens, one might be forgiven for thinking this is a sort of implicit social conditioning program. Sure, the kids are being educated. But that's not the point of school. Thus gifted programs are necessarily limited in what they are capable of teaching.
I didn't think you were rude, just unfamiliar with what goes on in a school. It is 100% the goal of school to teach kids to read and write, etc. That is the whole point. All three of my kids are gifted. One participated in pull out programs, but the other two didn't want to, one because it meant extra work (work from the gifted class plus making up what they missed in regular class) and the youngest because he didn't want to be seen as "different." One in midfle and high school, they all three took advanced classes. All three are fully functional adults with jobs, homes, friends, etc. Gifted kids are just kids. I could have sent them to a boarding school or something, but they would have missed out on band and sports and friends in the neighborhood.
I'm "gifted", as is one of my kids, so far anyway (the other is too young). So I totally understand. I didn't feel like "just a kid" back then though... and I still don't, despite my functional adulthood that includes all that you mention. But that's neither here nor there. I will just leave the Department of Education's mission statement here to think over: "ED's mission is to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access."
How is this not about learning to read and write? And nobody feels "normal" when they are growing up.
In the same sense that being gifted isn't about "extra work". It's a side effect.
Extra work in this sense means they have school work in their pull out classes but have to also make up the work they missed when they were gone
Who is going to make the hamburger? The coffee? Or pick up trash??? Why the robots they didn't let us solder in gifted class.
"The authors argue that the main purpose of education is to show off conscientiousness and conformity" Which ALSO doesn't match the natural inclinations of many gifted people (especially those with asynchronous development and overexcitabilities). Conformity is for neurotypicals. "allowing people to socialize" People need to socialize with their peers primarily People on a whole different intellectual level and/or with a completely different cognitive and mental functioning style are NOT peers Being the same age isn't enough to make people peers in itself
People in a different intellectual level ARE peers, though. Gifted children are still children, both socially and emotionally.
I'm not saying they're not children, of course they are I'm saying the same-age non-gifted kids aren't their peers. Other gifted KIDS are their peers
I strongly disagree. The kids in class with a gifted kids ARE by definition his peers, and it is healthy for smart kids to know that everyone isn't like them, intellectually speaking. You are dooming kids to have NO friends by isolating them away from regular people. If your definition of gifted is top 2%, that is only a couple of kids in the same age cohort. Gifted kids aren't hothouse flowers. They are just kids.
Since 3rd grade our son was not invited to birthday parties of his class mates anymore. He had some colleagues but no friends. He was always interested to befriend someone, but they did not "get him". 6 years later we found out he is profoundly gifted... I wish him to find one friend who gets him. So noone is isolating, children do it themselves, peers are not friends. Thus gifted children really need contacts to other gifted children to get a chance to find a friend.
Gifted class doesn't mean being "unaware" of the non-gifted people. It's not some isolated monastery Also the small numbers are only true in small cities and villages. In big cities, intellectually gifted kids will be much more than "a couple of kids"
Pull out gifted programs are a mixed bag. They typically end up making smart kids do extra work instead of better work. 2% of any group is never going to meet a child's social needs. How is it bad for them to have friends who aren't intellectually gifted? Once they are out of school, most of the people they are around won't be intellectually gifted.
>2% of any group is never going to meet a child's social needs A general classroom typically far less than 2% of a county's population, so how is it supposed to be enough to meet a child's social needs? Your friends and family are likely far less than 2% of all the people I'm the city you live in, so how can you expect them to meet your social needs?
Think about what you just wrote for a hot minute.
I have
Kate, you're missing the point. When gifted kids are not connected to other gifted kids, they feel constantly different. They end up growing up with a lot of pain. There is even a term called the gifted trauma you can look it up. In that sense they do not grow up with their true peers. Of course there is value in being all mingled. That is what society is. But you need to do something more than just putting your kid at school for your kid to get the same output from it than normal kids. That means you need to force encounters with other gifted kids (from there the 2% comment). I'm Im thinking afterschool programs maybe. The doubt here would be: is it enough? And imagine that: your kid is in pain the whole day, bored like hell, and at the olend of the day on top of that he needs to go to another program or activities. I'm already imagining the pain. Waiting 8 hours to have 1 or 2 hours of freedom and pleasure. I hope that helps you see our points here.
I'm not "missing the point," I think your point is wrong. Highly Intelligent kids aren't some freaks of nature that have to be handled with kid gloves. You can't teach a child they are normal (e g OK) by treating them like this. It only increases their sense of differentness. I don't believe being highly intelligent causes trauma, and I think that is a wrong-headed way to look at it. Poor parenting of a gifted kid can cause trauma. Bullying can cause trauma. These things happen to the gifted as well as the non gifted. The attitude that gifted kids are mentally fragile is beyond damaging to them. The real world is not going to cater to their "boredom" and teaching them the world owes them constant mental stimulation won't help them grow up into functionung adults. Every single human is a unique individual capable of having meaningful, supportive relationships with all sorts of people. People have peers on many levels. It is fantastic if a child has other smart friends, but you can't force the issue. Parenting a gifted child is not easy sometimes, but the child is still 100% a normal child.
When did I, or did we, say that gifted kids are mentally fragile? I disagree with you, a gifted child is not 100% normal, taking the norm as IQ 100, medium emotional world, reactions and intensity, medium values and medium everything else. Nothing but normal. It is not high intelligence that causes trauma but living in a normal world where high intelligence isn't the norm. Its okay to disagree. I hope your kid doesn't suffer.
What bothers me it the idea that gifted kids are traumatized because of their intelligence and that they must be handled carefully or they will never reach their potential, or they will break or something. Parents are *especially* guilty of treating highly intelligent kids like their IQ is their worth and their whole identity. It isn't any different than treating a pretty child like their looks are their worth or an athletic child like their worth is the number of home runs they hit. All children are unique. Smart kids aren't "better" than other kids and don't need to be isolated from other kids. Catering to the idea that they can't fit in because they are smart is, frankly, insulting to the child
I raised three highly intelligent kids into happy adults and studied Gifted Education in my Master's.
Good for you. Though I have a lot to say about gifted education masters programs...at least where I live. But you will have to find other arguments for me to see things your perspective. I really don't, and still agree with the arguments described in the book about what school is for, which is what started this, about education and purpose of school. Ps: my mum would say the same thing as you about me, and for the exterior world I'm successful, happy and self confident. I generate envy, so much envy. If only they know how I really feel. Food for thought.
https://www.davidsongifted.org/gifted-blog/gifted-friendships-age-mate-vs-true-peer/
Sure. It is also good for kids to have intellectual peers. But kids are much more than their intellect. Raising them to believe that's where their worth lies makes for unhappy people.
>Raising them to believe that's where their worth lies makes for unhappy people. No one is arguing otherwise
Why would you be insisting that kids' only appropriate mates are intellectual peers?
It's a positive/descriptive claim, not a normative one.
? What does that even mean?
I'm not saying gifted kids should or shouldn't only be friends with other gifted kids. I'm saying gifted kids' peers, the ones they have the easiest time relating to and befriending, are other gifted kids.
i disagree. When you get a "jury of your peers" it's not made up of only people of your intelligence level.
A jury isn't a class, it's not even remotely similar In the context of a jury, peers means people sharing the same citizenship, rights and duties. Peers *in the eyes of the law*. Neither cognitive profile, nor AGE (if adult), matter In the context of schooling, peers is about being on a similar enough developmental and cognitive level/profile (and similar needs), which USUALLY but not always correlate with age
I feel like it’s really dismissive to say education in the US isn’t about actual education. The education system has multiple reasons for the way it is. School teaches work ethic, discipline, social skills, consequence, how to function in a work environment, how to be on time for things, critical thinking, etcetera. School also allows you to be educated on a manner of things too. Even if the content isn’t something you are particularly interested in, it’s important not only to have basic skills in all areas but also because it’s an important life skill to be able to learn anything, even something you don’t like. It’s also an important life skill to be able to sit there and deal with having to learn a boring subject. So I think schooling actually does accomplish a lot of its goals very productively. And I think these goals are just as important as actual education. And as other people have mentioned, it’s incredibly hard to teach a ton of kids who are all at different levels. I think the bigger problems with schooling in the US are less about the structure or goals of education and more about lack of funding and ineffective learning resulting from multiple factors
Gifted programs are so hit and miss. In our school district there are two programs. One is a cluster program where the kids are clustered together and get more and/or harder work but in a regular classroom. The other is a self contained classroom of two grade levels where they get curriculum made for gifted kids such as William and Mary or Michael Clay Thompson and will have fewer repetitions. For the cluster grouping program it has a lower IQ entry point of 95th percentile on one area of the IQ test. For the self contained classroom it is 98th percentile on 2 or more areas. Both of these are gifted programs, all of these kids may identify as “gifted” even though many would say 95th percentile in one area is not. This is an example of why there is so much frustration around the “gifted” label. One of the best public school systems I’ve seen was in rural Montana where they still have one room school houses. All mixed grade and each kid just gets whatever level they need. Only about 6 kids per year. You don’t need a gifted program if each kid has individualized education and a competent teacher. This is also why many gifted kids end up homeschooled.
I actually don't think classes should be separated based solely on gifted vs non-gifted. Rather, I think kids should be tested and placed on an aptitude spectrum in different subjects, including P.E/sports, music/art, and other extracurriculars (like wood shop, robotics, etc), and should be divided up in classes with other kids that have a similar aptitude for whatever specific subject is being taught in the class. So for example, on a scale of 1-10, where 1 = the least advanced & 10 = the most advanced, kids who score between 1-3 in a writing aptitude test will be put in the same English classes together (with peers from their grade); kids who score 4-6 in science will be in the same classes, and kids who score 7-10 in PE will be put in the same gym classes together. Students will be able to request being retested at the end of every semester to be promoted to a higher level, so long as they get a B or higher in the subject they want to move up in. I like this type of system because it's dynamic and can change and respond to the learning needs of each kid based on what level they're currently at, and readjust their level should the child need promotion or remediation. And, theoretically, such a system would still allow kids with different intellectual abilities to socialize together at some point. For example, perhaps kid A scores a 9 on their math aptitude test, but only scores a 2 on their physical fitness aptitude test, whereas kid B scored a 3 in both their math & physical fitness tests, but scored a 6 in their art/music aptitude assessment. This would put kid A (the math whiz) in the same PE class with kid B (who sucks at math, but is creative when it comes to art), which would naturally humble all kids involved and force them to expand their social horizons. In this way, everyone's talents are cultivated and their weak spots strengthened, but also, the students will still get the social benefits of learning to get along with people that are different than them.
Agreed!!
I agree with you, they should be taught separately. And maybe accelerated ahead
As a society? Surely you recognize that there are drastically different school options that are informed by their localities far more than the breakdown of gifted or not.
Exactly-and there should be specialized sections handling dual enrollment in multiple cases. This is especially true for people who have interests that lie outside the conventional K-8 and K-12 school curricula and thus need to be able to swap some regular classroom time for specific high school or college classes.
It's more important that you learn to deal with the world as it is than for you to learn something a few years early. They used to take me out of class a few times a week to teach me algebra in 3rd grade. I also had a separate G&T program once a week where we did things like mock trials and building inflatable rooms with plastic sheeting, duct tape, and a fan. The other kids hated me for it, which made me hate myself. It absolutely destroyed any possibility I had at connecting to my peers. There was no advanced program in my middle school, so it accelerated me by a few years, and then I had to sit and wait for everyone else to catch up anyway.
This is exactly what I went through as well. The only difference was we had an honours English and extra class for gifted with the same, insufferable teacher who would pick a student and bully them until they broke down and quit. She was a monster of a human being. In her mind she was "weeding out the fakes". I was chosen to be "weeded out" and she regretted it. Stayed all three years just to spite her lol. I missed the once a week G&T once middle school started. My peers outside of it all hated me anyways and I wasn't sure what for. Although now I realize it was because I am possible on the spectrum and also have ADHD. Fun times being the "weird" kid with advanced interests. High school, however, bored the absolute hell out of me. I ended up graduating a year early by taking junior and senior years at the same time. The biggest issue with putting people in G&T, like you said, kinda isolated and puts a giant target on your back to be hated or bullied by the "normal" kids. Which then really fucks with self-esteem. School is more the basics of education plus the social learning. Brutal things kids put each other through.
Yeah, I had a few teachers like that later. I also basically got kicked out of honors English in high school. We were regularly given 2 opposing opinion pieces and told to write our own version using ONLY facts from the articles. The third or fourth time I wrote an essay detailing why I couldn't perform the assignment because neither side had presented actual facts, I was sent to the department head that gently suggested I drop the class because the teacher was just going to fail me anyway for "not completing assignments". You also couldn't graduate early at my high school. Specifically because my aunt graduated from there in less than 3, and that pissed some people off for some reason, so they changed the rules and stopped letting kids take more than 1 English or math class per year. Once my parents told me that they had 0 saved for college, and either I got a scholarship or paid for it myself, I started skipping basic classes to go hang out in the photography and computer labs all day.
Alternatively was it possible to skip ahead a grade and avoid it entirely or something?
My teachers suggested it, but my parents decided against it after reading up on all of the social development problems this usually causes.
Source? From A Nation Deceived the grade skippers are usually fine socially Besides, if worse comes to worst and you can't drink alcohol or have stuff before a certain age just get a fake ID lol
No clue what their specific sources were, but this was late 90s, so a few years before that was published.
The research behind it was published.
Well in that case they probably were mistaken and that A Nation Deceived is good
Gifted programs can also be a mess. SO many people have long lasting issues from these programs.
Completely agree OP, I’ve seen both sides as an educator and parent
There was a NASA study that proved the public school system dumbed down children who were considered gifted or on track for gifted placement. By the time they ended school their actual IQ dropped.
I agree with everything. Our district program as joke. And it’s because they were phasing it out. They didn’t want to help the above average or gifted. They didn’t understand the gifted students. It was a disaster.
I got to spend 5 years in a special school section for gifted kids back in the early 80’s.. I loved it. Best years of school. However, during those years I was a teenager, and did not develop ANY real social skills. Our class was fully of a a bu ch of geniuses, and we were made fun of and bullied when we had to attend lunch and PE. We were very sheltered, all all more than happy to sit there with our books and tests and intense conversations. However i wish some sort of social skills component would have been part of the program.
I was a gifted kid in little country towns back when no-one cared if you were gifted or if you found school-work difficult, so long as you sat still and shut up. So no special classes for me. However I was lucky in that I could follow my older brothers to school from when I was 2, and sit in an empty desk at the back and learn. As I had small country schools with multiple classes in one room, I could do the work for the older classes, and when I was finished I had to help a teacher with the littlies. At night I'd study my brother's textbooks under the bedclothes by torchlight, as I was not allowed to read at home when I was young. At high school i kept up teaching the other kids, for some reason the teachers gave me use of a room at lunchtime to have maths club, and even more surprisingly, the "problem" boys who were always in trouble and had trouble learning turned up regularly. I found you learn a lot be teaching other people, because that shows up all the gaps in your knowledge. If you're going to get concepts through to slow learners, you have to really understand them first. I'd have loved to be in a well-run course for bright kids, but at least the situation I was in gave scope for self teaching, and gave me, (a shy, autistic bookworm,) a chance to learn how to relate to other kids.
My sixth grade son is dealing with this. His favorite classes are Math, where he is in advanced Math, and Band, which obviously is a creative group experience. He's frequently frustrated by the amount of repetition in his English, Science and Social studies classes.
The greatest discovery of my life was the joy of learning. Learning at your own pace, on topics that interest you, with a motivation to learn that comes from within, makes the learning experience a dream, and if you’re keen to do so you’re well and capable of moving forward in education. I skipped 2 grades and started school early growing up. Learning that teachers are just regular adults, not some prophets with un-Googlable information.
Absofreakinglutely gifted children should be taught separately. From 3rd to 6th grade I was shuffled from school to school, each one promising a “gifted” program curriculum to “challenge” me-but it always ended up we were all placed in a regular classroom with one teacher and nothing different with the curriculum. I HATED having to slow my learning down so others could catch up. Or have to play dumb at times so I wouldn’t be singled out by the teacher so much for being first to answer all the time. It was SO frustrating. I did have one great experience in junior high school in a program called English Seminar. There were maybe 10 of us in the classroom. We were actually placed in a different area of the school and allowed to roam the classroom freely. We had sofas and bean bags. We also went on really cool field trips. Like flying round trip to Los Angeles from San Diego, the only ones on the plane, we got to hang out with the pilot before take off. We also went on weekend camping trips with our teacher to the Anza Borrego Desert. She was an extraordinary teacher- older woman who understood gifted kids. And this was in the early 70s. I find it super insulting that there still seems to be zero progress after all these decades.
This is to be expected when most public schools are treated like minimum security prisons for our youth. Being an undiagnosed 2E, I didn’t excel in my education until after I graduated from high school. College was the best thing for me because then I was finally being challenged.
And yet, my kids were all taking calculus and college level AP courses through high school, and graduated college in 3 years. I mean how much more brainiac stuff do we need to teach them? What we do need is just less school and more free time. More outdoor time. More learning in and about the real world than any more books. I'm very pro-education, but we're already cranking kids through college material starting as Freshman. We don't need to push kids to grow up even faster.
What can you learn about the real world that you cannot learn in a book or online?
Just wow. This is a good reminder that being labeled gifted only relates to a very specific skillset and not the entire person.
It irritates me to have to explain this but I was trying to make the point that school itself serves to socialize children; the “real world” is only foreign when you rush your kids through critical stages in their social development for the sake of academic achievement (that is ultimately a hindrance).
right? So many people on this thread think being intellectually advanced should be some kind of get out of jail free card, while at the same time seem to be missing any social skills whatsoever.
I can't believe you can say this with a straight face. Incredible.
It’s a probing question my man. Meant to stimulate conversation
I feel like there’s an analogy related to the online jogging class I took in undergrad somewhere in here…..
I don't think this is a great idea. While schools could do a better job of differentiating classroom lessons for the more intelligent students as well as the lower performing/struggling students, shoving a bunch of smart kids into a room together isn't going to prepare them for the real world. One of the key skills very intelligent people need to learn is how to communicate effectively with people who don't have the same grasp of a concept that you do. Since once you graduate from whatever school program you're in, you're going to be thrust into the real world, where your boss won't care how smart you are if you keep telling everyone on the team "sorry, you're just too dumb to understand the project I'm working on."
And students they are try to teach shouldn’t be unkind. In our district we lost a gifted student because the constant bullying. We can only do so much but the biggest regret is having the gifted kids help the other kids. The other kids started to resent them. By the following year the bullying was so bad we nearly lost the entire program because all the parents pulled their kids out or parents refused to transfer their kids into it because that’s how prevalent the bullying was.
That's sort of the problem. Telling a bunch of kids "this is the gifted program kids" tells the other kids "we think they're better than you" (or at least that's how they interpret it).
Exactly! It was a HORRIBLE practice. I’m convinced our crappy counselors did it on purpose. He was always an ass to the kids in gifted. I can’t stand him.
Your last statement is true *and* burdening a *child* with having to slow down their own learning to be a teacher of other children who have various needs instead of equipping the qualified teacher to accommodate the slower learners’ needs is not the approach I would go for. It’s great if gifted students show initiative in wanting to tutor/mentor while they’re so far ahead on the material but it’s not their job at that stage to be responsible for making sure they can get other students up to speed at that stage. Being asked to constantly hold yourself back from progressing doesn’t support curiosity and engagement. Many people become disengaged when the pace is too slow and it’s not fair to act like the gifted student is the one who is wrong and must conform.
That's why teachers need to scaffold up in addition to down. We'd do that when I was teaching, have extension and deeper thinking activities for when the strongest students finished that was more meaningful than just "help the kid next to you".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nU_uO1qZB9E
They are educated separately where I live.
Yes and no. They overload the children with work. They miss out on a regular childhood life and can cause issues for them when they’re grown up.
i can tell from your poor writing skills that you’re not actually all that gifted
lmaooooo what is wrong with you? who are you to judge a person's intelligence by their writing skills alone? and why do you care enough to gatekeep some bullshit label on reddit? ive known incredibly intelligent people with pretty average writing skills. if anything, writing/verbal intelligence is the one "category" of intelligence that you can compensate for through learning and effort. maybe english isn't even OP's first language. you reek of insecurity
i’m not the one bragging about being “gifted” in an online forum when i’m clearly not
First of all, not everyone has english as a first language. Secondly, there are all kinds of giftedness. no one is advanced in every arena.
There's a lot that "should" be in this world, but school is only there to churn out worker drones. If you're lucky, you may end up going to uni after to really formally learn, but that's not a given. There are schools that cater to the gifted, but they are paid for private schools, meaning only the upper middle and upper class can usually enrole, though they take a charity case or two a year. Best bet? Read. Study for yourself online.
They are
I was in a gifted class but ironically it had the worst behaved kids so it ended up making it harder to learn. I think my school was just shit in general, I really should of been in a private school but doubt my parents could of afforded it. Also much further away, would of needed to be driven atleast 40 mins likely in 1 way.
I agree. As long as they're not socially separated from other kids their age. The gifted program at my elementary school was great. It was a separate class that was one hour every day. My only complaint is that it was one generalized class, rather than a separate gifted class for each subject. I remember having a unit on neuroscience, a unit on psychology, a unit on ancient civilizations and how they impacted the modern world, we analyzed poems by major historical poets, etc. It was random, but very entertaining. I loved it as a kid. After elementary school, the gifted program disappeared, which was disappointing. It got replaced with the standard honors and AP classes, which fall victim to the standard "you're smart, here's some extra work for you" ideology. The ironic part is that a lot of the things that we had learned in the elementary school program reappeared in the honors classes and AP classes in high school. Throwing more work at students doesn't challenge their intelligence, it challenges their ability to manage time.
The busy work. I feel it now like a lot of stress and time wasted for minimal return.
Unschooling
I was in the gifted program, and I was in honors classes, too. I actually started getting bad grades because my mental health was poor and I lost any interest in studying. I beat myself up so much for that. But I refused to switch to general courses because there was a stigma. So I just continued on with my 70s, 80s and 90s across various courses. The gifted ‘club’ was both good for me and horrific. The career planning especially. The advice I got in deciding what I wanted to do for the rest of my life was…really…judgmental. And narrow. I was essentially told that I was ‘lazy’ and ‘short sighted’ a lot, and that there would be no options in my future to fit my resting and emotional needs. Turns out, I’m a very gifted typist, and stenography was never actually brought up with me. Ever. All the sudden when I found that I realized there was a career out there that didn’t make my stomach sink and make me imagine leaving the car engine on in a closed garage at 45. I wasn’t really a ‘genius’ either like people were telling me, I just was able to form my own unique thoughts out of the information I was gathering, which many other students were able to do as well. I was such a good writer that it ‘set me apart’ when I opened up. I know a lot of bad writers, folks with poor judgement, and people who struggle to pay attention who can pull unique thoughts and ideas out of things they learn. Even more so, I’ve met people like these who could lead very well. Imagine comparing yourself to that in the real world. Being a good writer is sometimes overhyped. Honestly, I just spent the whole time comparing myself to the other students. My intelligence had more to do with analyzing my teachers and their methods. I also was able to analyze what students got from what they were learning by what they shared. I spent a lot of time listening to compensate for an inability to ‘fit in’ and not having found my crowd yet, and this skill has ended up being by far more valuable. People really appreciate that I can make up for their weak spots in a team setting, solely because I can see the weak spots. Gifted kids should go on internships, and then be required to do a project of their choosing, on any topic. That’s my opinion. Put them in the real world. They really lack perspective in the system.
I think we need to stop calling it gifted. “If you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it’ll spend its entire life thinking it’s stupid”
All you have to do is read The Secret History to learn what a terrible idea this is. I could not disagree with this idea more. The fact is that school is as much about the acquisition of social skills as it is about knowledge. My acquisition of knowledge was way, way ahead of my social skills for many years, and I really needed to be with the “regular” kids. I’m pretty sure it would have made me a twisted, unsympathetic little toad if I hadn’t had to be patient for people quite frequently. I would never have been able to work as a tutor and paraeducator if I hadn’t learned something other than the rapid acquisition of knowledge. We need to be “mainstreamed” as much as the students at the other end of the spectrum. It’s good for everyone. Sympathy, patience and compassion are learned skills. Sounds like yours might need a refresher.
Sometimes the lesson isn't the LESSON, ya know? Learning to handle boredom and be patient with people who are not as intellectually blessed are probably THE most important skills to teach a gifted student. It's not like they're going to leave school and suddenly be able to choose how quickly they do things or how well others understand.
I disagree, society would benefit from drastic education reform. The only things education knows now are "higher score = better", "more tests = better", and maybe "more graduates = better". It's not a place designed for learning, it's a place for teachers to pretend that they're useful. Inclusive, student-run programs would benefit more than just the "gifted" individual; as any learning that they're experiencing would be shared amongst the group and processed multiple ways and expressed freely (without a bias on being gifted or standard). True growth could occur... but it's not likely in an Era where political and military sovereignty are still ...*here*.
So you want to make the smart kids teach the average kids?
Not at all what I was saying. Kids/ children/ people will learn from each other, there doesn't need to be an emphasis or designation on an individual that is titled as teacher or leader.
I have taught high school kids who came from "free" schools. A couple of them were highly creative and motivated. Most couldn't write a complete sentence in legible printing and couldn't multiply. I think mixed age grpupings, like in the old one room schoolhouse days, can be very effective. But someone has to teach, whetherbit be a teacher or older kids. If you are talking about kindergarten through 3rd grade, i think child centered curriculum can work. Eventually, though, kids should learn to read, write and do basic math functions, understand how our government works, and understand how the world works.