cover article in Time magazine on gifted education

My wife and I thought this was an interesting article. Here are some
excerpts. Other research supporting academic acceleration of gifted
student is at http://www.nationdeceived.org/ .

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...653653,00.html

Are We Failing Our Geniuses?
by John Cloud
Time Magazine, August 27, 2007

[T]he lack of awareness about the benefits of grade skipping is
emblematic of a larger problem: our education system has little idea
how to cultivate its most promising students. Since well before the
Bush Administration began using the impossibly sunny term "no child
left behind," those who write education policy in the U.S. have
worried most about kids at the bottom, stragglers of impoverished
means or IQs. But surprisingly, gifted students drop out at the same
rates as nongifted kids--about 5% of both populations leave school
early. Later in life, according to the scholarly Handbook of Gifted
Education, up to one-fifth of dropouts test in the gifted range.
Earlier this year, Patrick Gonzales of the U.S. Department of
Education presented a paper showing that the highest-achieving
students in six other countries, including Japan, Hungary and
Singapore, scored significantly higher in math than their bright U.S.
counterparts, who scored about the same as the Estonians. Which all
suggests we may be squandering a national resource: our best young
minds.

....

[S]ince at least the mid-1980s, schools have often forced gifted
students to stay in age-assigned grades--even though a 160-IQ kid
trying to learn at the pace of average, 100-IQ kids is akin to an
average girl trying to learn at the pace of a retarded girl with an IQ
of 40. Advocates for gifted kids consider one of the most pernicious
results to be "cooperative learning" arrangements in which high-
ability students are paired with struggling kids on projects.
Education professor Miraca Gross of the University of New South Wales
in Sydney has called the current system a "lockstep curriculum ... in
what is euphemistically termed the 'inclusion' classroom." The gifted
students, she notes, don't feel included.

....

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. Today most of the 33 students who were not allowed to skip
grades have jaded views of education, and at least three are dropouts.
"These young people find it very difficult to sustain friendships
because, having been to a large extent socially isolated at school,
they have had much less practice ... in developing and maintaining
social relationships," Gross has written. "A number have had
counseling. Two have been treated for severe depression." By contrast,
the 17 kids who were able to skip at least three grades have mostly
received Ph.D.s, and all have good friends.

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.

Best wishes,
Ericka

"Ericka Kammerer" wrote in message
...
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.

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. 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.

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.

Donna Metler wrote:
"Ericka Kammerer" wrote in message
...
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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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. It all gets back to the
question of whether it's essential that they push their
limits academically at every possible opportunity. In my
opinion, if it's child-led, sure; but otherwise, I doubt it
matters much at all in the long run if the child coasts
through kindy or first grade as long as the child is
having fun and enjoying learning. Because our schools also
don't start their center-based GT program until 3rd grade,
most schools have quite a bit of support available for
gifted kids in K-2 to make sure they're not totally bored--
some of which can involve moving the child to a higher
grade group for math and/or reading, while still leaving
them with the social and emotional support of a same-age
classroom for learning the ropes.

Best wishes,
Ericka
(who is thrilled to hear that our school system is finally
creating a program for gifted kids with learning difficulties)

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

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

"Donna Metler" wrote in message
...
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.
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.

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.

You might want to look into homeschooling. It sounds like what your DD
needs. I homeschool my gifted son. You can do the teaching like you were
talking about and join your local support group for the socialization. Our
support group includes classes, field trips, clubs, and play days every
month. We also do county sports, we did gymnastics before he was old enough
for the county sports, and were part of a weekly playgroup.

Good Luck. BTW, it can be difficult finding reading material that is
appropriate for an accelerated reader.

L. Miller

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. As an extreme example: I know of a boy who was speaking in
sentences by 18 months. At the church creche, he would go up to other
toddlers and ask "Do you talk?" If he didn't get a sensible answer, he'd move
on to the next child. Fortunately, the church had a largish creche -- but if
it hadn't, he might have spent quite a while looking for someone to talk to.
Concepts of friendships and humour change with cognitive advancement too, so
if your little girl is looking for a best friend to share secrets with in
kindy, she will most likely be disappointed. Most kinders think a friend is
the person you are playing with. If you have a child who is several years in
advance of her classmates in most cognitive domains, grade-skipping might be
the kindest choice for her in social as well as intellectual terms, but not
*all* gifted children are like that.

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.

Miraca Gross has tended to cover the opposite problem -- kids who are held
back academically (ie, not accelerated despite an obvious need) in the hope of
"improving their social skills". This is where the children have already been
rejected by their age-peers, so the social situation doesn't improve, and they
become bored as well. Remember that Miraca works largely in the Australian
culture, where intellectual prominence is frowned on.

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 was tentatively offered a one-year grade-skip for DS1 last year, and I
refused. He was already *two* years ahead in both English and Maths, so the
grade-skip seemed tokenistic to me. Instead, he's been accelerated in other
ways. There are about 16 different forms of acceleration, and which ones you
use depend on your own child's personality, stage of education, and the
resources available. I do notice that DS1 spends a lot of lunch-time with
fourth-graders, playing handball. First-graders aren't generally into
rule-based games; they like imaginative play and running. DS1 has fulfilled
his own need in this area. I wouldn't have been able to do it; I wouldn't
have had the ball skills to play handball at six. He can lose with reasonable
grace.

Seems to me that what children need is:
* a chance to befriend people who are similar to themselves (eg intellectual
peers, fellow-hobbyists)
* a chance to befriend people who are different from themselves
* a chance to succeed
* a chance to fail (eg academic challenge)

Put those together and you get resilience. Miss one, and you cripple the
child emotionally.

--
Chookie -- Sydney, Australia
(Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply)

"Parenthood is like the modern stone washing process for denim jeans. You may
start out crisp, neat and tough, but you end up pale, limp and wrinkled."
Kerry Cue

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).

Seems to me that what children need is:
* a chance to befriend people who are similar to themselves (eg intellectual
peers, fellow-hobbyists)
* a chance to befriend people who are different from themselves
* a chance to succeed
* a chance to fail (eg academic challenge)

Put those together and you get resilience. Miss one, and you cripple the
child emotionally.

This, I would agree with--always keeping in mind that
there are many hours in which to meet these needs, not just the
school hours.

Best wishes,
Ericka

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