Parents of gifted kids...

[boberot]

Originally Posted by chesapeake

Playing the Devil's advocate here, it is an elitist program. The whole point of a gifted program is to single out a small percentage of kids, generally using some sort of testing mechanism, to send them off for special instruction. Essentially, you are establishing an elite.

Given that many gifted programs determine who is gifted in kindergarten or first grade, when children from higher up in the socio-economic scale tend to do better, it is elitist in that regard. Most programs never retest and never toss out kids that turn out not to be gifted, so if a child is out at the begining for any reason, they are out forever.

Incidentally, my best friend was a victim of that. His language skills developed on the slow end of the spectrum so he did poorly on the IQ test used to get into the gifted program. By third grade, he had caught up to everyone else. By 6th grade, it was clear to anyone that he was as smart as anyone on the inside of the program. But there was no way in at that point.

I can also see their point about money. Education budgets are zero sum games. More money is being spent on gifted kids per pupil than average kids, and it is not unreasonable for a school board to take a look at that and wonder if it should be that way. If I am on the board and faced with the decision that many boards are facing right now -- whether to cut some teachers or programs that all my kids use or to cut a teacher and a program that serves <10% of my kids -- I'd be hard-pressed to justify supporting the gifted kids.

I don't see how it's elitist to give kids what they need. I think it punishes G&T kids and can have a detrimental effect on their development to have them continue on with a general, mainstream program.

There's plenty of documented research on the topic, but I've also seen an awful lot of anecdotal first-hand evidence: Bob is a gifted learner. He stays in the mainstream curriculum. He is bored every freaking day of school. He develops a terrible attitude toward learning / education. He doesn't develop the tools to tackle things that truly challenge him later in life. I know it sounds far-fetched, but from my own interest in the subject I have learned that these kids are JUST as likely to become disruptive in class, drop out, or make damaging life choices in HS or college as the kids at the other end of the learning spectrum.

Frankly, I think $ as a reason to do away with [or never begin] a G&T program is a cop-out. There is fat in the school budget, let's not kid ourselves. And to me educational programs should be the very LAST thing on the chopping block.

We have a terrible mentality about education in this country, "teaching to the test" in too many circumstances. Or, focusing exclusively on getting the struggling children to barely get over the bar. Those kids need that help, and I'd fight just as strongly to see them get their needs met, but it is our obligation to nurture those extraordinary kids with remarkable learning skills and fertile imaginations. They are capable of amazing things when given the proper tools and the proper environment.

[chesapeake]

Originally Posted by boberot

I know it sounds far-fetched, but from my own interest in the subject I have learned that these kids are JUST as likely to become disruptive in class, drop out, or make damaging life choices in HS or college as the kids at the other end of the learning spectrum.

There is fat in the school budget, let's not kid ourselves. And to me educational programs should be the very LAST thing on the chopping block.

I've heard the first argument before and have asked for data that shows that dropout and problem rates for schools that have gifted programs are better than those that do not in order to defend federal funding for gifted programs. Unfortunately, I have gotten no such data from the national organization.

Everyone would agree that educational programs should be the last on the chopping block. But given the state of the economy and that a number states are in budget crises, many school districts have already cut away the fat and now have to decide between things like all-day kindergartens or gifted programs. Personallly, I would rather that all kindergarten kids get a full day of instruction at a crucial time in their intellectual development than a small percentage of the student body get special instruction. I would like to see both funded, but in an either-or situation, I am very likely going to support the academic program that helps many kids than the one that helps a few.

I would also like to note that gifted programs in this country are all over the map and many, if not most, are deeply flawed. Not only are there big problems with determining which kids are gifted and which are not, there is also very contradictory evidence over whether kids in gifted programs actually perform better academically than kids in districts that don't have them.

Your own program may be the bee's knees and I hope it is. Don't get me wrong, I don't hate gifted programs. But I am skeptical that most of them work very well. And in many cases there are areas, such as pre-K and kindergarten programs, which have a much, much higher rate of return than other academic programs like gifted education.

[boberot]

The statistics on gifted kids dropping out are all over the place, you're right. I could cherry pick studies that support my argument, but there is a lot of disparity about what is considered "gifted" and even what is considered a "drop out."

Our G&T program could very well be an outlier, but that doesn't really matter because it proves that a G&T program does not have to be overly cost-prohibitive. It had its flaws, to be sure, but ours was able to provide unbelievable enrichment to the class of about 15 kids for the grand total of one teacher's salary -- that's it.

She was clever and resourceful, to be sure. She hustled class materials where she could and was motivated to go after grants. But, bottom line: One teacher using progressive individualized teaching strategies produced jaw-dropping results.

It can be done, I simply don't think the will is there.

[chesapeake]

Originally Posted by boberot

The statistics on gifted kids dropping out are all over the place, you're right. I could cherry pick studies that support my argument, but there is a lot of disparity about what is considered "gifted" and even what is considered a "drop out."

The studies thrown at me by the national talented and gifted orgs have never said what they think they have said. I went a few rounds with a gifted advocate a few years back on this and I remember it pretty well.

The studies generally show the same thing. "Smart" kids do drop out at alarmingly high rates; But, it should be noted, it happens at well below the national rate. This one guy eagerly pointed out in one study he was presenting that lack of challenge in school was a leading reason for "smart" kids dropping out. I looked at it later for some reason and was shocked by how misleading he had just been. It was the #4 or #5 reason given by the sample and was miles behind the top three, which I think were the usual suspects -- abuse, family problems and drugs.

Even if you concede that a lack of challenge is a leading cause of dropping out, I have never been shown a study or empirical evidence that gifted programs keep kids in school. I have asked, by the way. Apparently some experts have worked around the margins of that question, but no one to my knowledge has studied dropout rates from schools of similar affluence linked to the presence and/or robustness of the gifted program.

Again, I am generally supportive of gifted programs. But I think it is important to keep their value in perspective. And I am glad that this program has been very good for your child. Does every classroom in your child's school have such a small class size?

[revrew]

I was also such a kid - took two grade levels at once, "skipped ahead" to the third year, while all classmates were then a grade behind, and was still bored and unchallenged in the new class. Graduated young, struggled to keep up on the basketball court with older kids, graduated valedictorian, and yes, still struggle with fear of failure when success doesn't come easily.

My only advice would be to heed the difference between "education" and "school." The latter term, if you think like a "school of fish", is a group all swimming the same direction. Likewise, our schools are best suited for getting fish to all swim the same way.

As a gifted, your son will never swim the same way. Thus, many "schools" are going to be poor fits for your child.

The question, rather, should be "how can we best educate him?" - in other words, train him to think, develop his character, prepare him for his unique life?

How you answer that is up to you, of course. Obviously, if you can find other educators (mentor, tutor, unique educational institution), great. If you can't, you may have to supplement at home or consider home schooling to give him the individual attention/customized educational path he can thrive in. Frankly, this is why my wife and I home educate our children (kids of two TAG kids might be TAG, too, y'know?). But if he's left in school, you will - like my parents - be constantly fighting against the stream of fish and an institution designed to make him swim like the others. How much are you willing to fight? Your call.

[lighthousekeeper]

from the evidence provided by many in this thread, one thing is clear:

regardless of how you decide to raise your precious snowflakes, they will invariably end up, 20 years later, wasting large portions of their time playing text sim video games and/or posting on text sim message boards.

[boberot]

Originally Posted by chesapeake

Again, I am generally supportive of gifted programs. But I think it is important to keep their value in perspective. And I am glad that this program has been very good for your child. Does every classroom in your child's school have such a small class size?

Yes, the program was tremendous for both my kids and for about a decade's worth of children before they came onto the scene. The program is gone now. Despite our efforts, it got axed.

Their "value" is just as hard to quantify as some of the other data. Sure, these kids will get good grades with or without the program -- but as revrew deftly points out, that's not what it is about.

To me the argument has to be qualitative vs quantitative, because 100 on a test with G&T instruction is still 100 on a test without G&T instruction. But I would dare say not a SINGLE adult who was ever invited to the school for one of the Enrichment Class' programs or projects left unimpressed.

It was clear to me that their brains were being engaged the way they needed to be engaged -- and the results were pretty much awe-inspiring.

[To your final question, the class size was slightly smaller than the regular class size in the district.]

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by lighthousekeeper

from the evidence provided by many in this thread, one thing is clear:

regardless of how you decide to raise your precious snowflakes, they will invariably end up, 20 years later, wasting large portions of their time playing text sim video games and/or posting on text sim message boards.

I can only hope.

[GrantDawg]

So, as an update...it looks like Simon will be moving into the second grade. We got in touch with the school board to see what the policy is on acceleration (which there is one. Only 1 out of the 5 kids that applied was approved in the last ten years). It looked daunting, and we were sure we'd get flack from the principal as well as from his first grade teacher (who suddenly thought it might be best just to stop his moving classes all together and keep in her class full time). Well, his four teachers and the principal met, and they have officially decided to recommend his acceleration as soon as possible. So, now we go to the Head of Elementary School Curriculum, (who already has met Simon, and loves him to death) for final approval.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Well, his four teachers and the principal met, and they have officially decided to recommend his acceleration as soon as possible. So, now we go to the Head of Elementary School Curriculum, (who already has met Simon, and loves him to death) for final approval.

Congrats, not often you get that overwhelmingly positive response.

[GrantDawg]

Update: Well, it took some time. We got the official response from the Assistant to the Head of Curriculum a couple of weeks ago saying basically no. They did no further testing, and did not even talk with his teachers. That nearly caused his first grade teacher's head explode. It also seems the principal who had told his other teachers she was for it, was actually working against us. So, we proceeded to demand a face-to-face for a reason (which they did not even give). That was today. It seems that made the actual Head of Curriculum have to,like, READ what we sent. By the time we got to the meeting (ready for battle), they basically let us talk for a few minutes, then let us know they had already decided to move him to the third grade next year. He'll increase his second grade time this year (including taking the 2nd grade CRCT test), and then be enrollled as a third grader full time next year.

It didn't end up being as easy as at seemed after that first meeting, but it is going to be done. Wew!

[JonInMiddleGA]

If that sort of duplicity ain't typical then I don't know what is. But at least you ended up with the desired result.

Sincere props to you for not giving up & for pursuing it as hard as necessary, that's what parents are supposed to do (but kind of like common sense not being so common, it doesn't always work out that way on parenting stuff either).