Gifted Children

[Oleg Bach]

I share your experiences Oleg I was one of those who were pigeon holed as the pick and shovel brigade cruising along with a 60% average, then when I scored a 99% average in biology the school councilor investigated as it surely couldn't correct, but it was just a matter of me waking up and taking an interest in a particular subject, then once motivated extending it to other subjects...and I think most kids fall into that same category, until you find something that ignites their interest and you will not find out what they're really capable of...three of my kids have tested at genius levels, one has showed that all through school and now into post secondary, a 2nd cruised through high school and only in post secondary applied herself and met expectations and the 3rd cruised through high school and continues to cruise in post secondary doing only the minimum required(partying takes priority)...

gifted are those who take an interest, there are many more exceptional kids who are just not motivated Imo...those labeled as gifted do not require special schools to develop they'll do just as well in our present school systems, those who are drifting along are the ones in need of encouragement...

>I had horrible and hate full math teacher - she was the prototype of the bitter man hating lesbian. She simply dispised the males and went out of her way to screw you - I would get 20% in my math exams...so everyone assumed that I was dull minded--then I would score 90% in science - 87 and 80 in literature and history...this got the guidance councelor wondering what was my problem..back then they never even considered assisting you in math - they just dumped you if you were odd.

My second daughter dropped out of school a number of years ago - she went back recently and sent me a text ---her average was 89% and would have been higher if she had not been ill for one of the exams. I explain to her..that it is not about getting smarter by having an education - it is about getting your papers so you can cross through that door of opportunity _ I aways knew she was a great and talented writer even when she was a child - but to hear that she had a gift from a teacher was of great encouragement for her.

My greatest frustration was not having my credentials. The big picture is easily seen by myself - I think now and putting the arts aside - would have made a great administrator...looking at a large inner city hospital the other day _ I thought _ I could run this place perfectly....something about a mind that can be everywhere at once is useful when it comes to delegation...As Christ said "every person is granted a gift..." Society only accepts the gifts they think they need and dispose of the rest.

[BubberMiley]

Everyone in this place figures theyre gifted!

Not me. I'm as dumb as a post.

[pinko]

Not me. I'm as dumb as a post.

My life experience indicates I am anything but gifted. I'll settle for living vicariously through my children and grandchildren.

[Guest American Woman]

My mistake, I thought any OECD study would do. I found a bunch when I did a Google search, I just thought you would want the condensed version.

As I said, it wasn't just the results I was interested in - I'm interested in the whole process, as a bunch of statistics in and of themselves really don't tell the whole story.

Do they have to be specifically Hardner endorsed OECD studies or would the canon of OECD education data, located here do?

I was interested in the studies that were posted because if I came up with a different study, there are people whose (only) response would be - 'but that's not the same study!'

I do thank you for your links.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ugz_1Clpsdk

This video explains the tests and includes some commentary on streaming.

Thank you, I found both of your links interesting and they led me to the PISA site which also helped answer my questions.

-------------------------------------

As I said, statistics don't always tell the whole story - that's one of the first things I learned about testing/administering tests.

In this case, the test is given to a specific age group, not a specific grade in school, which means some of the kids taking the test are a grade ahead of some of the others. If the tendency of some countries is to graduate at an older age, the age group in some counties could be in a higher grade than in others. This would likely be an advantage.

Also, not all students take the test. The group taking the test is randomly chosen. I have to question if this gives accurate results - does the group give an accurate representation of the whole? If not, the results are inaccurate in regards to the whole - and this would be a greater factor in a countries with larger, more diverse populations.

Also, what language is the test given in? Who wrote it up? Does it favor English-speaking/students who speak the predominant native language non-ethnic students? If so, again, the results could be inaccurate when applied to real life vs. testing.

Another consideration. Students' "learning" doesn't all come from the school system. Which countries students have the most involved parents? Was that a factor in the schools chosen at random? That would be a factor outside of the school system, yet the testing is supposed to be representative of the school system/curriculum. My daughter was an aid and a teacher at a school in LA for "at risk" jr. high students, and no matter how good the curriculum, how much the students actually learned was affected by a lot of other factors other than the material presented. Family lives, and whether kids come home to parent(s) who help them with their studies, give nutritious meals, see that they got to bed at a decent time, etc. also very much affects how well kids do in school/how well they perform on tests.

Are the tests all administered the same? - ie: are students in some countries prepped for the tests? Are all tests timed the same?

These are some of the questions I have. I also think test results sometimes indicate which students do better on tests rather than which students would actually do the best in real life situations - which is what the testing is supposed to be showing.

So I look at the results and find them interesting, but I don't in any way find them conclusive regarding what they claim to be showing.

[August1991]

Not me. I'm as dumb as a post.

BM, you are being ingenuous. Rather than show up at the bank to borrow money wearing your Sunday best, you have decided that holes in your knees will appeal for the sympathy vote.

As Kimmy's OP notes, that's the other side of "Special Ed". On either side, whether gifted or "dumb as a post", parents know that their child will receive special treatment.

In English Canada, there is even another third side: French language immersion. Are there tests of young children to determine their aptitude to learn French?

[Wild Bill]

In English Canada, there is even another third side: French language immersion. Are there tests of young children to determine their aptitude to learn French?

As I said earlier in another thread, french immersion is just a secret plan to APPEAR to promote bilingualism, while actually ensuring that Anglos will always sound like foreigners to the Quebecois ear!

It's blatantly obvious that the "system" does NOT want Canadian Anglos to have a Canadian French accent!

[August1991]

As I said earlier in another thread, french immersion is just a secret plan to APPEAR to promote bilingualism, while actually ensuring that Anglos will always sound like foreigners to the Quebecois ear!

It's blatantly obvious that the "system" does NOT want Canadian Anglos to have a Canadian French accent!

You are raising several issues here. Let me consider two:

1. In English Canada, parents assume that if their child goes into French Immersion, the teachers will be younger, more motivated and other children will be brighter since the parents have put them there. Or something.

2. English Canada French Immersion teaches a foreign French accent (to a Quebec ear).

----

Your second point. Jack Layton is a WASP, or a WASA (White Anglo Saxon Atheist). Stephen Harper is a WASP. Both managed to get French Catholics (lapsed Catolics) in Quebec to vote for them.

We can discuss the ability of Layton or Harper to speak French. And then, we can discuss the ability of Obama or, say Laurier, to speak English.

As to your first point (which you really didn't make but I have usurped), I think that was my point in this thread - and the basic logic of my response to Kimmy.

Edited August 4, 2011 by August1991

[Oleg Bach]

Not me. I'm as dumb as a post.

Me too. If we could find more of us we could build a fence or maybe run some power lines on the heads of us utilitarian types.

[Moonlight Graham]

Yes, extra money should be spend on "gifted" and "special/disadvantaged" kids for them to realize their full potential based on their different needs from the average kid. For "gifted" kids i don't know the best solution (private school vs special classes vs skipping grades etc.), but i'm sure research has been done on the subject.

[Bonam]

Yes, extra money should be spend on "gifted" and "special/disadvantaged" kids for them to realize their full potential based on their different needs from the average kid. For "gifted" kids i don't know the best solution (private school vs special classes vs skipping grades etc.), but i'm sure research has been done on the subject.

By far the biggest obstacle for me and other gifted kids I knew was not the classes themselves. So what, they were boring and simple, big deal. My dad could teach me more interesting stuff at home after school. Today, an interested kid would have the internet to access whatever knowledge and learning they want. No, the biggest problem was the other kids in the classes, and how they make the life of kids that stand out, especially gifted kids, a living hell. As soon as I got into schools/programs where I was surrounded by like minded people, things got way better, even though the content of the classes was still just as simple and boring.

Therefore, in my opinion, to accommodate gifted learners, the most beneficial step would be to create classrooms/schools where they are grouped together with other gifted learners. Skipping grades is not an ideal solution, because that sets the person in question even more apart, not only are you then smarter than everyone else, you're also younger and smaller. Private schools are not a good solution either, unless they are private schools that are specifically for gifted learners.

Edited August 5, 2011 by Bonam

[Shwa]

These are some of the questions I have. I also think test results sometimes indicate which students do better on tests rather than which students would actually do the best in real life situations - which is what the testing is supposed to be showing.

In other words, would you consider the lists just a list of probabilities?

So I look at the results and find them interesting, but I don't in any way find them conclusive regarding what they claim to be showing.

It's social science, where the target is barn-door wide, nothing more.

[Oleg Bach]

Let children be what nature and God designed them to be- That way we can have more contributing members of society in the future rather than stupid compliant broken drones that feed the rich.

[thepatrickblack]

Let children be what nature and God designed them to be- That way we can have more contributing members of society in the future rather than stupid compliant broken drones that feed the rich.

If you haven't seen this Ken Robinson speech about schools killing creativity, do so; it's brilliant.

Essentially, he agrees with letting children be what nature designed them to be. Unfortunately, schools and parents try to shove everyone into the same box. Not everyone learns or expresses themselves the same way. Children (or anyone) should be allowed to thrive in environments that best suit them

Robinson Speech:

[MiddleClassCentrist]

If a parent has taught their gifted child to learn and be capable of learning on their own,

School becomes irrelevant for the 'gifted child', apart from socialization and friendship building.

You can learn how to make robotics at home, just pick up a few books and get going!

You can do more advanced experiments at home for science too.

One problem with specifically Ontario public education, is that Conservative Mike Harris killed a teacher's ability to properly grade learning skills. "It's what you know that counts." is BS. Who cares what the child knows, if they can learn anything they need to? Learning skills and character building are the most important part of childhood educatoin. A gifted child is useless if they can't learn on their own.

Meanwhile, learning skills are what many high end private schools grade... with only 20% of a student's grade being knowledge.

Edited August 24, 2011 by MiddleClassCentrist

[guyser]

If a parent has taught their gifted child to learn and be capable of learning on their own,

One problem with specifically Ontario public education, is that Conservative Mike Harris killed a teacher's ability to properly grade learning skills.

He has been gone how long now? What a legacy, even if not true!

Meanwhile, learning skills are what many high end private schools grade... with only 20% of a student's grade being knowledge.

Im willing to bet you never attended a private school. I did and believe me, only 20% is knowledge based? Not a chance. Someone does not fork out $20,000 a year for their 8 yr old for that to happen.

Edited August 24, 2011 by guyser

[MiddleClassCentrist]

He has been gone how long now? What a legacy, even if not true!

Learning Skills are not part of a students grade.

Im willing to bet you never attended a private school. I did and believe me, only 20% is knowledge based? Not a chance. Someone does not fork out $20,000 a year for their 8 yr old for that to happen.

I think you mis understand. Tthere is a lot of knowledge but I am referring to how students are graded.

I was hired as a network administrator at one fresh out of University.

20% - Content (Knowledge/Understanding)

30% - Independence (Ability to follow instructions and complete tasks without holding the teachers hand constantly)

20% - Work Ethic

20% - Inquiry (Investigating further, going above and beyond, extending knowledge)

10% - Home Work Completion

Being able to learn is more important than what you currently know.

Edited August 24, 2011 by MiddleClassCentrist

[Wild Bill]

Learning Skills are not part of a students grade.

I think you mis understand. Tthere is a lot of knowledge but I am referring to how students are graded.

I was hired as a network administrator at one fresh out of University.

20% - Content (Knowledge/Understanding)

30% - Independence (Ability to follow instructions and complete tasks without holding the teachers hand constantly)

20% - Work Ethic

20% - Inquiry (Investigating further, going above and beyond, extending knowledge)

10% - Home Work Completion

Being able to learn is more important than what you currently know.

I think something is missing from that list. At the end of the school year, how much did that gifted student actually learn? More important, how much did they learn on their own because they found what was offered to them at school to be too easy, too boring and too irrelevant?

After all these years, looking back at my own school experience and watching what my children went through I've come to the conclusion that our mainstream system is simply incapable of dealing with gifted children. Not surprising, when you consider that the percentage of gifted teachers is likely as small as the number of gifted children. We can also wonder how many gifted folks were involved at a high enough level to develop those so-called 'gifted' programs.

Besides, the real focus is always on the challenged, not the gifted. Perhaps that is the way it should be, since gifted children have far better abilities to advance in this world. Certainly, politically politicians get far more "brownie points" for helping the challenged child.

If the proof is in the pudding, I have never met anyone yet who was a gifted student and who believed that schools did a very good job in educating them. Rather, I have found these people to have been voraciously self taught. These are the people who when you visit their homes you find that every book in their bookshelf has actually been opened and read! Most folks today that are graduates of our school system don't even HAVE a home library!

So as I've previously posted, I think that parents of gifted children should not try to rock the boat and leave themselves and their child open to perhaps some negative repercussions. Far better to teach your child that they have to toe the line at school to get that degree, even if the only value to that degree is to get a good job. Meanwhile, get them reading before they even go to kindergarten! That's not even too early to introduce them to the computer and the Net! Teach them how to satisfy their own knowledge interests. To those who worry they might inadvertently see something "naughty" on the Net, spend some time with your children once in awhile as they surf the Internet! That bonding time is precious and VERY important to teaching them to self-educate! I taught both my children to read before they hit the age of four, the same way my parents taught me. You read a book EVERY night to your child! You will be surprised and tickled at how soon they catch on to word recognition. One night your child will be reading to you and NOT by memorization!

The school 'system' is politically forced to make at least token efforts for children that fall out of the median average, both above and below. That doesn't mean that YOUR gifted child will see some benefits, just that there will APPEAR to be some efforts! So take some initiative and invest your own time with your child and you will see far better results.

[bloodyminded]

When I was in grade school back in the day, I wasn't identified as "gifted" but "advanced" in certain subject areas. So while I didn't actually skip a grade, the school was set up in such a way to allow me to particiapte in classes from the next grade up. I was lucky in that respect because I had access to high school classes when in grade school.

Identical, Shwa! Me too. A couple mornings a week in higher grades. (Not high school, though, I hasten to add.)

However, I sort of messed it all up in later years anyway, when I simply and flatly stopped caring about any of it. I don't know if the system failed me...but I rather suspect I did it all myself.

Edited August 28, 2011 by bloodyminded

[xul]

Many parents, just like many teachers, don't know anything at all about the whole concept of gifted kids. And most kids certainly have no notion of it.

I wonder if those designers of the "psychological tests to identify gifted learners" have the gifts to know "the whole concept of gifted kids".

Do you remember the weird attempt of murdering a rival in love which a female US astronaut involved in? I'm sure as an astronaut, she had passed countless "psychological tests".

Anyway, everyone has the gift of creating job for himself. For example: a teacher of gifted-kids' class wants gifted-kids because of no gifted-kids, no class for the kids, no teacheres for the class...