"Gifted" status... is it too common and why does it matter?

[Kirby]

I worked as a teaching assistant in my children's elementary school in the late 90's. The children chosen for the G & T class scored high on their critical thinking skills. Most of them made good grades and quite a few did not behave well in school. It was a relief for their teacher to have them leave for their G & T class.

I wish they would bring back the honors program in our middle school and high school. So many kids taking the pre-AP and AP classes are failing at least one class. A lot of them take the class because their parents make them. There are no prerequisites to take the classes like their would be for honors classes.

We do have the Global classes for those those driven students with type A personalities. They do well no matter what class they take.

 

[asta]

I agree 100% with CEDmom. The true tragedy in American schools is that they are failing with the students that are left in the middle. Most students by definition are in this group and they have no advocates for better programs for them. In my state the gifted program actually was lobbied into handicaped status. This insures that students selected for that program get special attention as far as classes and also, in most schools, for teacher selection. The real ridiculous part of the process is that children are selected at the beginning of second grade for the gifted program. Considering that out of my daughters' classes at least one third of the children have been held back at the start of school to insure that they are older or more mature than the other children, it hardly seems fair to evaluate children at that age. I think readiness to learn is too big of a variable at the age of seven or eight to be making that call.

I know that I may sound bitter to some of you, but I am very passionate about my children. The breaking point with me occured when my fourth grade daughter came home from school one day and declared that there was something wrong with her because she actually understood what they were doing in math class and the gifted students in her class did not. She was sure that there was something wrong because she was not supposed to understand anything before the gifted students. She was being told loud and clear that the expectations were lower for her. The fact that this message is being reinforced in our public schools is what is wrong with education in this country. At that point I gave up on public schools and enrolled my daughters in private school. As opposed to the local public schools, all children at the private school my children attend are expected to do well. Everyone enrolled has an equal opportunity for honors and advanced placement classes. The true shame is that we have to pay for this opportunity because someone decided at the age of seven to set lower expectations for my children.

By the way, that fourth grader who was not "supposed" to understand math is now a high school senior. Her SAT and ACT scores are great and she is planning on majoring in math in college.

 

[taximomfor4]

Here, in our district, it is very difficult to get labelled "gifted" and qualify for the gifted program (which is weak anyway.) For us, though, the necessity of diversifying dd's education made the pursuit of the term "gifted" necessary. She was spending her class time in first and second grade tutoring her classmates, hiding during recess to read books, etc. Thank GOODNESS she was able to get tested and qualify for a program where she met other kids like her, who didn't think she was "wierd."

BTW in our district, IQ 135+. DD was WELL above that. She is termed what is sometimes called "Profoundly Gifted." If you figure that the curriculum must be set for the majority, IQ in the 90-110 range, if you get a kid with an IQ 50 below that (50), how would that child fit into the regular curriculum? So ADD that 50...say a kid with 150 IQ. Same difference from the "Average" or "majority." Yes, it would be WONDERFUL if a teacher could individualize the lessons for each kid's abilities...that way offering challenge to everyone. But realistically, that is just not feasible.

Sorry got lengthy.... my point is that the gifted program, weak as it is here, gave dd one day a week OUT of her extremely boring classroom (one day less learning the SAME OLD STUFF)...and gave her a much needed peer group who didn't think she was a freak genius, who understood her better. Without the "gifted" label, I dont' know that she would have been able to tolerate school at all.

 

[mickeyfan2]

I saw an "expert" talking about education. They say that kids are in a 10-80-10 grouping. The bottom 10% will never learn no matter what you do for them. The top 10% will always learn no matter what you do to them. But the remaining 80% are the the ones that you can mold. The sad part is that right now we seem to be focusing on the two 10s and forgeting the 80. The 80 is where our education system needs to focus. BTW I was in the top 10 and do not feel that I was cheated in my education and was never in a gifted program.

 

[taximomfor4]

I saw an "expert" talking about education. They say that kids are in a 10-80-10 grouping. The bottom 10% will never learn no matter what you do for them. The top 10% will always learn no matter what you do to them. But the remaining 80% are the the ones that you can mold. The sad part is that right now we seem to be focusing on the two 10s and forgeting the 80. The 80 is where our education system needs to focus. BTW I was in the top 10 and do not feel that I was cheated in my education and was never in a gifted program.

Tough to gauge, but here, this is in no way true. The upper 10 are told to read a book when done with the lesson early...which is all the time. The lower 10, here, have State-Funded programs (that they need) -- some during the school day, some after school. There is no state-funded ANYTHING for the upper 10. Oh, and in our district, you have to have the grades to get into the Honors Classes. Those are completely unrelated to the 1x per week pullout program for gifted kids.

DH teaches in a neighboring district, and tries very hard to not bore the heck out of the upper 10...but the fact is that he is under tons of pressure to get the ones NOT in the top 10 to pass "the tests." So at least around here, the teachers are definitely forced to concentrate on everyone EXCEPT the top 10.

 

[jekajekalynn]

I believe it all has to do with getting state/federal aid and grants. I'm sure there are pools of $ for G&T programs so each school or district creates guidelines for determining who's G&T and who isn't. There's no state/federal measurements. As far as testing kids that may be true for the upper grades but not all grades. There's help for those at the opposite end of the spectrum. I really feel for those kids who are designed average/solid students (I was one of those) because they are truely the ones being left behind.

For what it's worth, my DD (much to our surprise) was put in the G&T program for 1st graders. What that means is she has an extra special each week. They're learning how things are made. I don't really see the point of the program at this young an age.

I agree with this too. I was a smart kid and made honor roll every year, but I felt alot of us were left out from challanging schoolwork because we weren't so-called 'gifted'. When I was in high school they FINALLY "Got it", and developed a special type of class for us 'in the middle' kids. It was a cool computer class. Unfortunatly they aquired this when I was a senior so it was kind of too little too late for my class...

 

[txaggiemomof3]

I found the below chart to be very helpful when trying to figure out where my 8 y.o. dd stood.

HIGH ACHIEVER Vs. A GIFTED LEARNER

A HIGH ACHIEVER *** A GIFTED LEARNER

knows the answers *** asks the questions

is interested *** is highly curious

is attentive *** is intellectually engaged

has good ideas *** has original ideas

works hard *** performs with ease

commits time and effort to learning *** may need less time to excel

answers questions *** responds with unique perspectives

absorbs information *** manipulates information

copies and responds accurately *** creates new and original products

is a top student *** is beyond his or her age peers

needs 6-8 repetitions for mastery *** needs 1-2 repetitions for mastery

understands ideas *** constructs abstractions

grasps meaning *** draws inferences

completes assignments *** initiates projects

is a technician *** is an innovator

is a good memorizer *** is insightful, makes connections

is receptive *** is intense

listens with interest *** shows strong feelings, opinions

prefers sequential presentation of information ***thrives on complexity

is pleased with his or her own learning *** is highly critical

 

[KristaTX]

I guess depending on the school or district's approach to it, it can be a good program for students. But I was in the "Gifted and Talented" program 20-25 years ago, and I can't really say it did me any good the way my school did it. No one ever told me what I was gifted or talented at , and it certainly didn't help me identify or guide me into pursuing the career that I actually had a passion for .

The only problem I have with the program is that it is called "Gifted and Talented". Every person I have ever met is gifted and talented in some way, but just not necessarily academically. I can't believe they still use those words to define it . I am definitely all for programs that focus on certain segments of the population (e.g. smart kids, foreign language kids, special ed kids, average kids), and it makes me really mad when some kids are held behind because other kids are not as advanced academically. But phrasing is everything, and the term "Gifted and Talented" seems to me to belong back in the days when students were allowed to pick and choose their teammates for PE (with the same kids ALWAYS being picked last ). "Gifted and Talented" is only a step better than just calling them "The Smart Kids", which makes everyone else feel like "The Dumb Kids".

G/T has the potential to be a great program, but it's definitely time for a new name.

 

[jekajekalynn]

I guess depending on the school or district's approach to it, it can be a good program for students. But I was in the "Gifted and Talented" program 20-25 years ago, and I can't really say it did me any good the way my school did it. No one ever told me what I was gifted or talented at , and it certainly didn't help me identify or guide me into pursuing the career that I actually had a passion for .

The only problem I have with the program is that it is called "Gifted and Talented". Every person I have ever met is gifted and talented in some way, but just not necessarily academically. I can't believe they still use those words to define it . I am definitely all for programs that focus on certain segments of the population (e.g. smart kids, foreign language kids, special ed kids, average kids), and it makes me really mad when some kids are held behind because other kids are not as advanced academically. But phrasing is everything, and the term "Gifted and Talented" seems to me to belong back in the days when students were allowed to pick and choose their teammates for PE (with the same kids ALWAYS being picked last ). "Gifted and Talented" is only a step better than just calling them "The Smart Kids", which makes everyone else feel like "The Dumb Kids".

G/T has the potential to be a great program, but it's definitely time for a new name.

Thank You!!! (if I could find the agree/ nodding smilie, I would put it here )

 

[dizagain]

Older DD is classified as "gifted" after a round of testing in 1st Grade. They didn't call the program "Gifted and Talented", though, which I was happy about. She attended a special class once a week for an hour in 1st grade which progressed each year until she was in the class for all language arts/reading every day in 5th. We liked the program - wasn't really an accelerated academic thing, more like a critical thinking/think outside the box sort of thing. The one thing she really took away from it all was the ability to put together a research project/paper...they started those skills in 2nd grade and by 5th grade she did it all by herself which I didn't do until High School.

Now we've moved and there is no program at all. No big deal to us, but she sure is reading a lot of books this year as the work is really too easy in most subjects. But, we don't spend alot (any?) of time focusing on the "gifted" thing...she's going to perform at the level she works for no matter what. She CHOOSES to work hard and get everything (and more) done to the best of her ability...we don't even have to ask her if she's done her homework, etc. She'll be put into AP classes starting next year in middle school - but that's her goal, not mine - just ask her!

That said, younger DD can run rings around big sis when it comes to common sense and deep thinking...just doesn't fit the mold for "school learning". She does just fine with her B's and occasional A's and C's. All kids are different and I fully expect both of my girls to succeed in whatever path THEY choose!

 

[Nana Annie]

TXAGGIEMOMOF3 is right. There is a huge difference between the true "Gifted" and the very intelligent. Just because you are very intelligent does not automatically make you "gifted" in the clinical definition. And the true gifted, while in the upper IQ ranges (especially the profoundly gifted), are not necessarily your best students in class.

The true "Gifted" do belong in handicapped status, because there are well recognized personality issues that go hand in hand with the gifted label. The true "gifted" child's brain works differently. There can be personality quirks (for instance - some may have an oblivion to social cues), and other behavioral issues. Many gifted personalities are originally diagnosed as ADD or ADHD or rarely, but occasionally somewhere in the autism spectrum. Many tend to actually do very poorly in a standard classroom because they learn differently. Once an ILP is formulated that challenges their mind the way their mind actually works, then the true intelligence shows up. But a true gifted program should not only incorporate challenging work, but social and behavioral work too.

At least this is how our psychologist has explained our child to us.

I guess we are lucky that our school recognizes this and bases their honors classes on academics. Starting in 4th grade, in math, children are given a pre-test before each unit. So, you may be in the "gifted" group for one unit, and a different group for another unit. In reading, your are tested every couple of months for comprehension, etc. You are grouped accordingly. Children reading way beyond their grade level are pulled out for extra activities.

Starting in 5th grade, there is an honors math and an honors LA. In the first week of school, you take a pre-test. Getting into an honors class is based strictly on ability, not on your IQ score. This continues throughout middle school. In highschool, you can sign up for any honors or AP class you want and it is up to you to be able to complete the work.

In middle school, they also offer math and reading programs in the summer to prepare you for the placement tests. These are for kids that are right on the border, or in some cases -for kids that have skipped so many classes that some of the basics were lost.

The true gifted program is one that incorporates extra learning challenges with social and behavioral exercises.

 

[Toby'sFriend]

I would agree with that Nana Annie and I have no doubt that there is a percentage of the population who fit those criteria. My problem with the Public Schools and their "Gifted" is when they apply that label to up to 20 to 25% of the student population.

I also agree that many kids with differring types of intelligence do think best outside the box. However I think nearly every kid should be encouraged to "think outside the box," beginning with moving away from stupid Standardized Multiple Choice tests.

And I honestly think the current trend of tracking students into higher level classes at 2nd and 3rd grade is ridiculous. There are numerous children who do just horrible at younger grade levels and then mature into excellent students as late as High School or College. Taking opportunities away from these kids because of their 4th grade test scores were low is simply ridiculous.

 

[Nana Annie]

The problem that I have with using IQ tests to determine gifted status is that the IQ test was designed to diagnose developmental delays, and it has not proven to be all that accurate when used to test for above average intelligence.

I don't believe this is true. Of course, I don't know what test your school used, nor what test you are referring to. But the standard IQ tests, such as the Stanford Binet, the Weschler (?) was designed to determine IQ - and very good at determining above average IQ's.

A good psychologist can detect developmental delays by analyzing results of all the subtests.

 

[Sandy V.]

My problem with the Public Schools and their "Gifted" is when they apply that label to up to 20 to 25% of the student population.

I agree. Reminds me of the Incredibles, and a conversation between Dash and his mom Helen:

Dash: Dad always said our powers were nothing to be ashamed of. Our powers made us special.

Helen: Everyone's special, Dash.

Dash: Which is another way of saying no-one is.

I think that "gifted" is a very overused label, and it's often a worthless designation in our education system.

 

[C.Ann]

I have two thoughts on this.. I think there really are more gifted children these days than there used to be, although I'm not quite sure why.. Kids just seem to be way smarter and much more advanced at very young ages now - even starting in infancy..

As for why it's important for it to be recognized, I would say that it's only important in certain cases.. Some children are so gifted that if they were to sit in a regular classroom day after day doing only the routine work of their fellow classmates, the odds are good that they would either stop participating completely (and therefore "appear" to be a failure) or they would act out in some manner from sheer boredom.. It doesn't happen to all gifted children, but it does happen to some..

Other than that, I guess it really isn't all that important in the grand scheme of things..

 

[barkley]

i'm not a proponant of g/t programs. i feel that if a student/students are able/motivated to achieve more than their indivudal class/classes are offering there should be alternatives available to them, but to include or exclude a student by virtue of a test or 'presonality profile" is in my opinion very short sited.

i encountered many students (as a student and as a teacher) that were extreemly gifted in a particular subject/subjects, however because they did not perform well on the standardized testing a particular school district mandated for their g/t program or they did not meet the social profile (in some districts "displays leadership qualities" is a key componant) they were ineligible to attend classes that would have further developed and enhanced that skill. i saw this in particular with boys who performed at or just above level in reading, language-but were years ahead in their math and science, girls who performed at or just above level in math and science but excelled in written language. in both cases the students often had social skills such that they were never provided the opportunity to 'demonstrate' leadership (they sure were not going to be the kids picked as sport's team captains or get anyone to nominate/vote for them for class offices-in a group learning project they would often be the most contributing member, and the information they shared with their co-members contributed greatly to the learning process-but not the one who deemed themselves "in charge"). some of these students went on to take advantage of a/p classes in highschool-but had they been given the opportunity to advance thier studies at the elementary or jr. high level they could have achieved so much more.

i also saw kids who met the criteria such that they were accepted into these programs and basicly took up space for the remainder of their educational career (in some districts unless it is by parent request or the g/t fails in EVERY subject they will not be removed from a program-so the high i.q. kid who simply does the minimum will prevent another student who would benefit from inclusion).

i've known g/t students who loved their programs (although more often than not it was not based on having more information available to them or the challenge of higher level work-it was more often the alternate learning opportunities afforded them or the "extracurriculars" not available within the standard classroom). i've known g/t students who detested their programs-they detest being labled, they view their g/t "peers" as elitist and they feel it grossly unfair that premium electives are offered not to any student who shows an interest/ability for it but only to those within the g/t program.

my children's school does not offer a g/t program, but it is unique in that it is grouped k-2, 3-8th. students work in books at their "grade level" but are permitted to move ahead in a subject should they show an interest and sufficient mastery of the subject to go on to a higher level. some subjects are discussed with the entire class in mind-simplifying some areas for the younger and evolving into greater depth for the older. after my daughter had attended long enough to get several reportcards and complete 2 standardized tests (for accredidation the school must use a nationaly recognized test that indicates the child's performance vs. same state students as well as those across the united states) i noticed a huge variance in her "performance'-as much as 4 grade levels above in some subjects with right on level in others. i discussed this with the school and they shared that it was the norm within their teaching model. they belived that some students would always excell at a particular subject they had a talent for or an overwhelming interest in, and they would not discourage the student from pursuing it. they however allways kept the entire educational experience at the forefront-if a student was not performing at level in some subjects that would be addressed as the priority over offering enhanced learning opportunites in another. i appreciate this because i've known far too many kids in the g/t programs (in our area) whose teachers have told parents 'don't worry about his/her performance in x-look at how well he/she is doing in y-that's where his/her 'talent is'. in my mind, every student needs to be proficient in ALL basic educational skills.

parents who ask me (and friends who are teachers, counselors, principals) are usualy told-look at the criteria for admission into the program, look at the curriculum and the principles of the program-then look at your child. it's not for everyone, and if you decide to include a kid in one always do it such that both the parent and the child realize that if they opt to discontinue participation-it not a failure issue. learning style is very individualized-what works for the bulk of "g/t" kids may not be what works for yours.

 

[Nana Annie]

And I honestly think the current trend of tracking students into higher level classes at 2nd and 3rd grade is ridiculous. There are numerous children who do just horrible at younger grade levels and then mature into excellent students as late as High School or College. Taking opportunities away from these kids because of their 4th grade test scores were low is simply ridiculous.

I agree. I think straight tracking is terrible, because once "labelled", whether GT or average or special needs, it is very hard to get out of that box.

That is why I love what our schools have just implemented. In the younger grades, the kids take a short pre-test before EVERY unit and then are placed in groups for that unit. This really benefits the younger kids because learning is so uneven at that developmental age.

So, for instance, if your child is having a hard time with multiplication - he may be in a group that goes a bit slower and really concentrates on the fundamentals. But the next month, if the child is spacially advanced in his development, he may jump to the high group for geometry. Although not perfect, it really is a step in the right direction in addressing the different and across the board developmental stages of the kids in lower grades.

And because the kids tend to move around in groups a lot, that whole "I'm in the smart group" tends to go away. It also does weed out that very small percentage of kids that really, really need extra stimulation (both the bottom 10% and top 10%), while still attending to the needs of the 80%.

 

[Nana Annie]

Here is a great article on why the exceptionally gifted children often are seen as doing poorly in a regular classroom, and why programs are needed for them.

http://www.sengifted.org/articles_learning/Lovecky_ExceptionallyGiftedChildrenDifferentMinds.shtml

 

[J/T Gramdma]

I agree with NANAAnnie. THe brain does work different for a gifted child than a bright or smart child. The problem is when the gifted child is bored and totally not challenged, they act up and bother other children. in my family all my 3 kids and my nephew qualified for the gifted programs. However the school systems did not view the children as smart atho they test gifted because two of them did not function well in school. My daughter was 12 and in the 7th grade and the teacher told us in a conference that she tested out of 12 th grade. I could not take her out of school so she went to classes and did no work just listened and would get a f for all homework and classwork -get an A on the mid tern and pass the course, this was the pattern of how she did all her work in high school. The reason I mention this no teacher confronted her about her grades they didn't care as long as she passed the course . 4yrs and not one teacher called us in to talk about her poor daily grades. IN many ways the gifted are forgotten or just passed thru the school because the child puts in minimal effort and is passed. These kids are the free thinkers of the next generation ,they are not the kids who will dowell in a 9-5 job. To lose the kids early on is sorry. IN many ways they have a handicap in the school that is just not recgonized. How painful is it to finish the work in half the time and then amuse yourself and sit still and be bored while others work.

 

[binny]

see now the problem I have with the traditional classroom is that Cam was always BORED!! Kids who are bored do not learn well!

There was no challenge for him at all but the worst thing was that his KINDERGARTEN teacher relied on him to lead reading groups.
that is way too much pressure to put on a 5 year old kid. She would almost use him as an aide. It got to the point where they were sending him to 2nd grade class to do math just so he wouldn't be bored.
They couldn't "officially" put him in the GATE program until grade 2. So at that time they had a pull out. He lived for that day! Now that we have full time GATE he is in heaven!!

Now he is in a wonderful program that nurtures his needs socially and mentally. It challenges him and teaches him study habits ( which is probably the biggest complaint I hear from GT parents) and is the just greatest thing.

we need the GT label for several reasons. Here they can get into another special school that is pull out starting in grade 6, its a math and science school. They teach advanced classes and also life skills. They have to test in to this school BTW, and they have to maintain certain GPAs to remain in the GATE program here, you can be kicked out if you don't perform to the standards.

when they get into HS with the GT program they can take college courses. My friends dd is going to graduate HS with an AA.

I love it. I think its wonderful that they have this program available that my child can be challenged and feel like he is actually still a regular kid. I wish they had had the same available when I was in school.