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 |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
cover article in Time magazine on gifted education
"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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
cover article in Time magazine on gifted education
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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
cover article in Time magazine on gifted education
"Sue" wrote in message news:j6mdnWvH74KK1FXbnZ2dnUVZ_t2inZ2d@wideopenwest .com... "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. 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. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
cover article in Time magazine on gifted education
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) |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
cover article in Time magazine on gifted education
"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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
cover article in Time magazine on gifted education
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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
cover article in Time magazine on gifted education
"Ericka Kammerer" wrote in message ... 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. She asks and answers questions about what she reads. I'm an educator by trade. I know what reading looks and sounds like. I also know what counting objects with 1-1 correspondence vs just counting by rote looks like, and many other things that she's doing. And when I say that she's pretty much mastered the kindergarten curriculum as taught in schools here short of writing, without formal instruction that's as someone who has experience with that curriculum and knows what the kids at the end of the year look like. But I also know that physically, emotionally, and socially, she's not at a 5 yr old level. She gets frustrated with children her age, because they're not doing what she wants to do, and older children tend to not want to play with a child who can't keep up with them physically, even if she's playing in the same way. And when she gets frustrated, she's all toddler, all the time. If she's tired and cranky, she's a tired and cranky toddler. And if she's occupied and engaged, she's not going to always make it to the toilet on time, either. She's not some little 5 yr old in a not yet 3 yr old body. She's a 33 1/2 month old who just happens to pick up on academics apparently via osmosis. Believe me, I would happily have her even out and become more "normal". I didn't make her the way she is, I haven't taught her to read early or made any real effort at coaching besides things like signing her up for the summer reading club when she showed an interest and driving her there weekly to read with the volunteers. And I RESENT the assumption that I don't know my child or know what's "normal" for a child her age and am just feeding my ego. 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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
cover article in Time magazine on gifted education
"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. -- Sue |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
cover article in Time magazine on gifted education
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 |
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 |