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
  #21  
Old August 19th 07, 10:23 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:
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  
Old August 19th 07, 10:59 PM posted to misc.kids,misc.education
toto
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 784
Default 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  
Old August 19th 07, 11:01 PM posted to misc.kids,misc.education
Rosalie B.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 984
Default 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  
Old August 19th 07, 11:05 PM posted to misc.kids,misc.education
Ericka Kammerer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,293
Default 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  
Old August 19th 07, 11:51 PM posted to misc.kids
toypup
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,227
Default 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  
Old August 20th 07, 12:32 AM posted to misc.kids,misc.education
Alan Lichtenstein[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default 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  
Old August 20th 07, 01:15 AM posted to misc.kids,misc.education
Rosalie B.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 984
Default 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  
Old August 20th 07, 01:20 AM posted to misc.kids,misc.education
Ericka Kammerer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,293
Default 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  
Old August 20th 07, 01:22 AM posted to misc.kids
Ericka Kammerer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,293
Default 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  
Old August 20th 07, 02:52 AM posted to misc.kids,misc.education
toto
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 784
Default 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

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 11:58 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.