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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |