A Parenting & kids forum. ParentingBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » ParentingBanter.com forum » misc.kids » General
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

cover article in Time magazine on gifted education



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old August 19th 07, 03:32 PM posted to misc.kids,misc.education
Ericka Kammerer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,293
Default cover article in Time magazine on gifted education

Sue wrote:
"Donna Metler" wrote in message
In many ways, I wish there was an equivalent of her preschool once she
gets to kindergarten. Her 12 hours a week at preschool are serving an
emotional and social need even though academically she's not learning
anything new there, and I can easily, with that schedule, teach and
supplement at home. I suspect if she were able to go to school part-time
and homeschool part-time, it would be a better fit for her, at least in
early elementary before GT programs pick up (which isn't until 3rd grade),
than either homeschooling or traditional schooling.


And that's not to say that she is gifted. I suspect that the kids who are
truly gifted, is going to be a much smaller number than many parents would
like to believe. It really kind of bugs me that parents are stating their
kids are gifted, when they really are not. Most preschoolers are sponges and
will pick up lots of things, especially if the parents are pushing them,
which many are. 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.


Weeeelllll...we've all met parents who believe their
kids to be gifted when they're not (Lord knows there are plenty
around here in the land of super competitive parents). However,
if you know what to look for, you usually *can* see giftedness
this early. One of the most insidious things that parents of
gifted kids have to deal with is that they don't want to be
one of "those" parents, so they hang back and don't advocate
for their kids like they should. They wait too long to see
if things will somehow work out on their own. It's a hard
line to walk.

Best wishes,
Ericka
  #12  
Old August 19th 07, 04:17 PM posted to misc.kids,misc.education
Sue
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 613
Default cover article in Time magazine on gifted education

"Donna Metler" wrote in message
My daughter was picking out words on signs before age 2, and is reading
through the easy reader section of the library at 2 1/2. She read 47 books
this summer for the summer reading club, independently, most of them not
to me but to the librarians and volunteers at the library.

I somehow doubt that she's just average.


Maybe, but did she comprehend what she read? Just because a child can read
words, doesn't mean they are understanding them and comprehension is more
important than just reading words. Some kids are better at different things
than others and it still doesn't mean they are gifted. Everyone reaches
things differently. I would still say that most averages out by 3rd grade
and if the child is truly gifted, then yes different accommodations should
be made. It seems that my girls were little sponges when they were little
and seemed really smart, but they are just average because once they reached
a grade where things became harder, they were in line with pretty much
everyone else.
--
Sue


  #13  
Old August 19th 07, 05:20 PM posted to misc.kids
Ericka Kammerer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,293
Default cover article in Time magazine on gifted education

Sue wrote:
"Donna Metler" wrote in message
My daughter was picking out words on signs before age 2, and is reading
through the easy reader section of the library at 2 1/2. She read 47 books
this summer for the summer reading club, independently, most of them not
to me but to the librarians and volunteers at the library.

I somehow doubt that she's just average.


Maybe, but did she comprehend what she read? Just because a child can read
words, doesn't mean they are understanding them and comprehension is more
important than just reading words. Some kids are better at different things
than others and it still doesn't mean they are gifted. Everyone reaches
things differently. I would still say that most averages out by 3rd grade
and if the child is truly gifted, then yes different accommodations should
be made. It seems that my girls were little sponges when they were little
and seemed really smart, but they are just average because once they reached
a grade where things became harder, they were in line with pretty much
everyone else.


This is a bit of a fallacy. While it is true that
not all gifted kids are early readers, the overwhelming majority
of kids reading *that* early are gifted (and probably highly
gifted or more), particularly if it's not one of those situations
where they've been coached to within an inch of their lives.
It's true that a lot of differences in reading in
the early years are developmental and even out by around
3rd grade, but reading this early and with this degree of
fluency is very unusual for normal kids (stories from
some parents notwithstanding). It's also unusual to see
the normal kids show this sort of precociousness in multiple
areas.

Best wishes,
Ericka
  #14  
Old August 19th 07, 05:53 PM posted to misc.kids,misc.education
toypup
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,227
Default cover article in Time magazine on gifted education

On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 11:17:12 -0400, Sue wrote:

"Donna Metler" wrote in message
My daughter was picking out words on signs before age 2, and is reading
through the easy reader section of the library at 2 1/2. She read 47 books
this summer for the summer reading club, independently, most of them not
to me but to the librarians and volunteers at the library.

I somehow doubt that she's just average.


Maybe, but did she comprehend what she read? Just because a child can read
words, doesn't mean they are understanding them and comprehension is more
important than just reading words.


The kid is 2 yo and reading for Pete's sake. What more do you want? I do
think a child reading that young is gifted. I know some parents push and
push their kids, and those kids can probably read without truly
understanding anything. However, one who does it on her own volition is
definitely gifted.
  #15  
Old August 19th 07, 07:04 PM posted to misc.kids,misc.education
Donna Metler
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 309
Default cover article in Time magazine on gifted education


"Ericka Kammerer" wrote in message
. ..
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.


And, when you're talking about acceleration, you're talking about the
student having to be significantly MORE mature than most their age. My DD's
occasional tantrums due to frustration, needing to be prompted to go to the
toilet when she's playing because otherwise she will forget, days where she
just wants to cuddle her stuffed dragon and mommy, and the like are all
perfectly normal in a child who won't be 3 for several months yet, but
wouldn't exactly endear her to a kindergarten teacher, for whom those
behaviors would be a sign of an extremely immature child indeed.

A 12 yr old boy who acts his age is probably going to seem quite immature
when with 15 and 16 yr olds.

And when you're talking radical acceleration without a structured program
designed to support it or homeschooling on a 1-1 basis, that's what you're
talking about.


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.


And, really, in order to succeed seriously at an art or sport, being gifted
enough that the academics come easy and don't require much effort is a
significant advantage, at minimum. In music, I'd almost say it's a
prerequistite. Most children I've seen in the University Prep department who
are doing college level study in their early to mid teens are also quite
intelligent.

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.




Best wishes,
Ericka



  #16  
Old August 19th 07, 08:06 PM posted to misc.kids,misc.education
Tori M[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 79
Default cover article in Time magazine on gifted education


My daughter was picking out words on signs before age 2, and is reading
through the easy reader section of the library at 2 1/2. She read 47 books
this summer for the summer reading club, independently, most of them not to
me but to the librarians and volunteers at the library.

I somehow doubt that she's just average.



And here I was thinking Xavier was pretty darned smart teaching himself
the alphabet by sight. :P You have a pretty smart little girl there.

Tori
  #17  
Old August 19th 07, 09:48 PM posted to misc.kids,misc.education
Herman Rubin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 383
Default cover article in Time magazine on gifted education

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.
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
  #18  
Old August 19th 07, 10:02 PM posted to misc.kids,misc.education
Herman Rubin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 383
Default cover article in Time magazine on gifted education

In article ,
Ericka Kammerer wrote:
Donna Metler wrote:
"Ericka Kammerer" wrote in message
...
Beliavsky wrote:



And what concerns me a bit is that it's not going to always work for all
children at all times. The statement that placing a child who can read in
kindergarten is emotional torture kind of bugs me, because while a 5 yr old
might be reading on a 4th grade level, that doesn't mean that they're not 5
yrs old and going to school in the big building for the first time.


There are ways around this problem.

It also doesn't mean they're ready for the content of
some books appropriate to 4th graders ;-)


They probably are, more that fourth graders denied a decent
education. Besides, one learns little from reading fiction
without considering it as entertainment plus philosophy.

My 2 1/2
yr old is on a kindergarten to 1st grade level in most academic areas, but
emotionally, physically, and socially she's still an almost 3 yr old who
goes back and forth between being excited about getting to go to the "big
class" (preschool, as opposed to the infant/toddler MDO classes) and wanting
to cling to what she knows and mommy. There's no way she'd be able to handle
kindergarten right now, even though I'm regularly looking at 1st grade
materials in order to provide her what she needs at home.


Well, and there's also no guarantee that kids a couple
years older will be more kind to someone who's even more
obviously different or that the teacher will be more qualified
to deal with a gifted child.


Children should be in classes according to their abilities in
EACH subject, and these should not generally be at the same
"grade" level. In fact, a 6 year old who is doing mathematics
at the "normal" level of a 10 year old needs to be in an
accelerated class at that level. The difference increases
with age.

I suspect that when she's 5, kindergarten will be about her speed in
everything BUT academics-and that accelerating her to the point that she's
challenged academically would not be a good choice in any other area.


In many ways, I wish there was an equivalent of her preschool once she gets
to kindergarten. Her 12 hours a week at preschool are serving an emotional
and social need even though academically she's not learning anything new
there, and I can easily, with that schedule, teach and supplement at home. I
suspect if she were able to go to school part-time and homeschool part-time,
it would be a better fit for her, at least in early elementary before GT
programs pick up (which isn't until 3rd grade), than either homeschooling or
traditional schooling.


See the above. There is no reason why the program you suggest
should be difficult to implement, but do not expect the traditional
schooling to be able to do much of the job, except possibly in
music or art of "physical education". Some items do not have an
academic order, so doing some of them in school, and moving other
aspects up and doing them outside, can also be done. They can
wait to learn American history in school and study the currently
untaught "prerequisites", ancient and medieval history, first.

I think a lot depends on what kind of support the
school can offer, and what her personality and interests are
like at that time. If the school can offer enough enrichment
that she's not bored and she's enjoying the social and other
aspects of school, then she may be fine with what enrichment
you can provide in after-school hours, especially if this
is just a stop-gap until 3rd grade.


You underestimate the amount of boredom which will result.

It all gets back to the
question of whether it's essential that they push their
limits academically at every possible opportunity.


Not necessarily push, but don't let slide; this is a bad
habit, and hard to overcome.



--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
  #19  
Old August 19th 07, 10:09 PM posted to misc.kids,misc.education
Herman Rubin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 383
Default cover article in Time magazine on gifted education

In article ,
Ericka Kammerer wrote:
Chookie wrote:
In article ,
"Donna Metler" wrote:


And what concerns me a bit is that it's not going to always work for all
children at all times. The statement that placing a child who can read in
kindergarten is emotional torture kind of bugs me, because while a 5 yr old
might be reading on a 4th grade level, that doesn't mean that they're not 5
yrs old and going to school in the big building for the first time.


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? Someone who puts learning first is
not going to get along with the one who wants to play
tiddlywinks, or even baseball.

They are going to have to learn that they are different,
and learning that others do not share the same interests
early is NOT bad.
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
  #20  
Old August 19th 07, 10:11 PM posted to misc.kids,misc.education
Ericka Kammerer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,293
Default cover article in Time magazine on gifted education

Herman Rubin wrote:
In article ,
Ericka Kammerer wrote:
Donna Metler wrote:


In many ways, I wish there was an equivalent of her preschool once she gets
to kindergarten. Her 12 hours a week at preschool are serving an emotional
and social need even though academically she's not learning anything new
there, and I can easily, with that schedule, teach and supplement at home. I
suspect if she were able to go to school part-time and homeschool part-time,
it would be a better fit for her, at least in early elementary before GT
programs pick up (which isn't until 3rd grade), than either homeschooling or
traditional schooling.


See the above. There is no reason why the program you suggest
should be difficult to implement, but do not expect the traditional
schooling to be able to do much of the job, except possibly in
music or art of "physical education". Some items do not have an
academic order, so doing some of them in school, and moving other
aspects up and doing them outside, can also be done. They can
wait to learn American history in school and study the currently
untaught "prerequisites", ancient and medieval history, first.


Again, the sweeping generalizations. First, why
is it that you think the "educationists" can't teach the
core academics, but think they are capable of teaching
art, music, and physical education? Or is it just that
you think kids gifted in those areas can be "held back"
with impunity? Second, why do you assume that ancient
and medieval history aren't taught (or aren't taught before
American history)?

Best wishes,
Ericka
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:00 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.