If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
cover article in Time magazine on gifted education
Herman Rubin wrote:
In article , Ericka Kammerer wrote: Chookie wrote: As a general rule, however, social development tracks cognitive development, not age. Eh, I'm not sure how much I buy that. I know an awful lot of immature gifted kids. At the same time, that doesn't necessarily mean that they are at the same place as their age-peers either. Often gifted kids live with not fitting in all that well socially *anywhere* (and therefore they sometimes feel most comfortable with sensitive adults who can adjust as needed). Are they immature, or do they just not fit into the preconceived mold? Immature, as in lacking the maturity displayed by others their age in significant areas (delayed gratification, handling disappointment gracefully, planning ahead to meet goals, accepting responsibility, exhibiting socially appropriate behavior, etc.). I doubt they are *more* immature than their normal age peers, but immaturity certainly isn't a rarity among gifted kids. Some kids just are immature. Someone who puts learning first is not going to get along with the one who wants to play tiddlywinks, or even baseball. What's up with perpetuating this myth that all gifted kids are non-athletic nerds? Gifted kids might not want to play baseball (or engage in any other particular activity), or they might rather enjoy it. Among my kids' gifted peers, some are extremely athletic. Others avoid it like the plague (but are just as in need of at least enough physical activity to be healthy and strong). A number of studies have suggested that early mobility (sitting, crawling, walking) is characteristic of very young gifted kids, just as is early literacy and numeracy. If that is so, why would we assume that later in life, gifted kids are (or should be) all about the core academics and not possibly *also* about the arts, sports, or other non-academic activities. Best wishes, Ericka |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
cover article in Time magazine on gifted education
On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 09:42:42 -0400, "Sue"
wrote: Most kids all catch up with each other in 3rd grade and the ones that the parents thought they were profoundly gifted at 3 yrs old, turns out to be pretty average. For front-loaded children perhaps. This is a myth though when it comes to gifted children. They do NOT even out. Other children may begin to do better, but the truly gifted child will continue to be ahead because s/he learns at a faster pace. -- Dorothy There is no sound, no cry in all the world that can be heard unless someone listens .. The Outer Limits |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
cover article in Time magazine on gifted education
Ericka Kammerer wrote:
Herman Rubin wrote: snip Someone who puts learning first is not going to get along with the one who wants to play tiddlywinks, or even baseball. What's up with perpetuating this myth that all gifted kids are non-athletic nerds? Gifted kids might not want to play baseball (or engage in any other particular activity), or they might rather enjoy it. Among my kids' gifted peers, some are extremely athletic. Others avoid it like the plague (but are just as in need of at least enough physical activity to be healthy and strong). A number of studies have suggested that early mobility (sitting, crawling, walking) is characteristic of very young gifted kids, just as is early literacy and numeracy. If that is so, why would we assume that later in life, gifted kids are (or should be) all about the core academics and not possibly *also* about the arts, sports, or other non-academic activities. Right - Several of my grandchildren are quite athletic and have been tested into G&T also. Two of them were playing on baseball teams for children a year or two older than they were and they did quite well. My grandson who started when he was 5 has been playing on the middle school varsity even as a 6th grader. Another one of them basically got himself into the G&T middle school with his guitar playing when he had to earn money for his lessons by himself. It wasn't something that was his parent's idea. He switched to violin and trumpet in school of course because they don't have guitar there. He's a freshman in HS this year, and is trying out for the swim team and working on getting to be an eagle scout. One of my children who tested gifted in kindergarten (but then we changed schools and she was not in the G&T program after that) was riding on the national level in combined training at 14 (the youngest she could compete at that level). She did it on her own without a coach and riding a barefoot aged pony. Some lucky people are both smart AND athletic (and good looking) |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
cover article in Time magazine on gifted education
Rosalie B. wrote:
Some lucky people are both smart AND athletic (and good looking) And don't we all love to hate them? ;-) I knew a couple of those over the years, a few standing out especially in my memory....... Best wishes, Ericka |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
cover article in Time magazine on gifted education
On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 08:41:27 -0500, Donna Metler wrote:
Believe me, I would happily have her even out and become more "normal". Why? I know it presents some challenges, but I don't think it's a bad thing. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
cover article in Time magazine on gifted education
Herman Rubin wrote:
In article , Ericka Kammerer wrote: Beliavsky wrote: Actually, research shows that gifted kids given appropriately challenging environments--even when that means being placed in classes of much older students--usually turn out fine. At the University of New South Wales, Gross conducted a longitudinal study of 60 Australians who scored at least 160 on IQ tests beginning in the late '80s. Keep in mind, however, that what is true of kids with 160+ IQs is not necessarily true of all gifted kids. I think it's very important to meet the needs of gifted kids; however, there are many possible ways to do that and what is best for a student depends on many factors. Even with the results cited above, radical acceleration may only look good in comparison with mainstreaming. I'm not knocking acceleration. It works for some kids. However, I am very leery of this notion in that it gives what looks like an easy and cheap way out of meeting the needs of gifted kids. Need more than you can get in your mainstream class? No problem--we'll just shove you in with kids one, two, or more years older than you. Well, maybe it beats the alternative, but I suspect there are better alternatives available. I wouldn't trade the program my kids are in for radical acceleration, no way, no how, and I'd be mad as could be if they tried to tell me that tossing them up a grade or two was an adequate solution. For the profoundly gifted, the numbers are so small that sometimes radical acceleration is the only option. They're as far ahead of most other gifted kids as most gifted kids are ahead of kids with average abilities. At any given time, a school system may have so few of them that they'd have a hard time creating a class of kids with similar needs. I would never want to take acceleration off the table as an option. My point is simply that I don't think acceleration is the cure-all that some people think it is...and sometimes the cynic in me sees it as a bill of goods being sold to parents of gifted kids. It is true of less gifted children, and even for those who are merely bright. Children should be learning at THEIR rates, not the rates of those who should not consider any job requiring a real education; this is at least 1/3 of the populace. The average child should learn about 1/3 more, and better. The "ordinarily gifted" child, even in one area, should be doing strong college work in that area in his or her early teens, and of course the profoundly gifted should do even more. Holding back a child, even in ONE subject, should be a serious crime, and those responsible should pay whatever it takes to try to rectify that, together with a comparable fine to weakening the contribution of that child to society. A mind is a terrible thing to waste, and the educationists keep devising better ways to waste minds. We might well want to desocialize our schools; many children would prefer to be as ignorant as their friends. We have the resources to do so, and we should immediately use them so our bright students can be in classes for them. Herman, you're vindicated! This article professes what you have been professing for over ten years! |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
cover article in Time magazine on gifted education
Ericka Kammerer wrote:
Rosalie B. wrote: Some lucky people are both smart AND athletic (and good looking) And don't we all love to hate them? ;-) I knew a couple of those over the years, a few standing out especially in my memory....... Best wishes, Ericka Yes - it's not FAIR. I'm only smart and good looking g |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
cover article in Time magazine on gifted education
Donna Metler wrote:
I haven't been around the really, really serious athletes, particularly in individual sports (those in pre-olympic training, for example), but it wouldn't surprise me to find that many of them are also intelligent, just focused differently. I have less experience with athletes as well, but I do know some who are quite bright. Damien Woetzel (principal with the New York City Ballet, and--obviously-- and incredibly gifted dancer) is one of the very rare people who have been accepted into the Harvard Kennedy School of Government for a master's program without even an undergraduate degree. There's a local olympic caliber track star who always struck me as quite bright (and who made it into a very academically competitive college program, although ultimately he decided to turn pro and pursue track full time partway through his undergrad). I don't know if he was in one of the local gifted programs, though. Certainly, I know there are dancers who aren't considered particularly bright, but the most talented dancer coming out of our studio has always seemed very bright to me. She has been homeschooled, and is electing to go to a very prestigious company school rather than college right now, so I don't really have any yardstick to measure her academic achievement by, but she is very articulate and has always struck me as quite intelligent (and her older sister, who did choose college, got into a very competitive school and seems to be doing quite well). There was also a teacher at our studio who was a *very* gifted professional dancer and also had an engineering degree. I can only imagine that she must have been very bright to pursue the degree of excellence she achieved in dance and still do well in an engineering program. Anyway, while I'm sure there's a great deal of variation, and I've certainly met my share of musicians/artists/dancers/athletes who weren't exactly tops in their class academically, I certainly have met quite a few who were very bright and I agree that it's an asset for them to be able to pursue their passions and still keep up with the academics. It's almost a truism that any company that's full of engineers will also be full of musicians, not to mention the boatloads of research suggesting that musical training improves academic performance. (Whodathunk that *I*, who fit the stereotype of the avoid-sports-like-the-plague gifted kid to a tee, would end up with kids who were physically gifted as well as academically gifted? Crazy. I never envisioned my life as a parent like this...) Best wishes, Ericka |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
cover article in Time magazine on gifted education
toypup wrote:
On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 08:41:27 -0500, Donna Metler wrote: Believe me, I would happily have her even out and become more "normal". Why? I know it presents some challenges, but I don't think it's a bad thing. It's not a bad thing, but it ain't an easy job in the parenting, and it isn't always easy to see your kids go through the difficult times that often go along with it. Many people have observed that there seems to be a "sweet spot" with IQ in gifted kids where it's high enough that the sky's the limit in practical terms, but they're close enough to "normal" that they can get along in the world more easily. Get outside that range and life can be quite challenging. Best wishes, Ericka |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
cover article in Time magazine on gifted education
On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 17:23:06 -0400, Ericka Kammerer
wrote: If that is so, why would we assume that later in life, gifted kids are (or should be) all about the core academics and not possibly *also* about the arts, sports, or other non-academic activities. We should not assume the stereotype, yet I think Herman was like this as a child and therefore assumes that all gifted children are as he was in his own youth. -- Dorothy There is no sound, no cry in all the world that can be heard unless someone listens .. The Outer Limits |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Breast-feeding pic on cover sparks backlash against Baby Talk magazine | johnson | Pregnancy | 74 | August 1st 06 08:15 PM |
Breast-feeding pic on cover sparks backlash against Baby Talk magazine | [email protected] | Breastfeeding | 1 | August 1st 06 07:06 PM |
Breast-feeding pic on cover sparks backlash against Baby Talk magazine | Mum of Two | Solutions | 0 | July 30th 06 08:37 AM |
Breast-feeding pic on cover sparks backlash against Baby Talk magazine | FragileWarrior | Pregnancy | 4 | July 30th 06 01:43 AM |
Breast-feeding pic on cover sparks backlash against Baby Talk magazine | Neosapienis | Solutions | 0 | July 29th 06 11:35 PM |