<p>
[quote]
To people more worried about kids who are falling through the cracks altogether, doing slightly less than we could for the most gifted might not seem like a pressing problem. But if the study is right that exceptional youthful ability really does correlate directly with exceptional adult achievement, then these talented young kids aren’t just a challenge for schools and parents: they’re also demonstrably important to America’s future. And it means that if, in education, we focus on steering all extra money and attention toward kids who are struggling academically, or even just to the average student, we risk shortchanging the country in a different way.
<p>This issue is raised periodically but in our state (and sadly it appears nationally for the most part), not much is ever changed to help gifted kids. So much money is needed for the ‘special needs’ population that the budgets tend to be severely strapped and even acknowledged gifted kids are pretty much left to their own and parents’ resources.</p>
<p>The internet can be a great help to allow kids to learn at their own pace and expand their opportunities. Our state’s gifted resources were troubling on so many levels, but not going to get into that on a Friday. Most of the very gifted kids we know tried and generally succeeded in getting out of our publics and into private schools, where they could have more of their needs met.</p>
<p>Interesting that they have done longitudinal studies dating so far back. </p>
<p>But even if a school would like to do something, and that is a big if, any solutions will be blocked by parents.</p>
<p>“One fix they tend to focus on is investing in early childhood education for all:” Even if we had money for this, this would be resoundingly blocked by parents who believe even kindergarten is much too academic. See the recent thread in this forum. This is a political impossibility in this country, although Finland is doing this with good results.</p>
<p>“Olszewski-Kubilius points out that expanding access to preschool would allow teachers to identify kids with the most potential before they even get to kindergarten. Requiring regular screening of all kids from elementary to high school would catch those whose talents emerge later than their peers’, as well as smart kids whose parents aren’t savvy enough to advocate for them.”</p>
<p>OK, but then what? Our school has about a 50 page manual on screening procedures; they make a big deal out of it, and once the kids are screened they do nothing for them. It’s a lip-service sham to try to convince parents they are actually addressing the kids’ needs.</p>
<p>“Other education researchers propose gearing the entire curriculum toward the highest-achieving students, with extra time outside of class for their less-talented peers to catch up. It’s an idea that Adam Gamoran, president of the youth-focused William T. Grant Foundation and a former University of Wisconsin sociologist, says could address the issue of inequality without holding back high achievers.” </p>
<p>Nice thought, but how are the other kids going to catch up in “extra time outside of class” when the high achievers are several years ahead of them? Parents will complain. And it’s never going to happen because no school district would be willing to risk flunking 80% of their students. They are also not at all going to risk doing anything at all that might show how large the achievement gaps really are. Imagine standardized school tests where some kids are getting 100% and many others are getting 10-20%. Can you imagine the outcry? That might look bad for them. Better to make an easy test that doesn’t come close to challenging the best students, to cap their scores and close those gaps to an acceptable level.</p>
<p>I guess we were lucky. My kids were in big public schools in enormous school districts where there was a plan in place to identify and serve gifted kids. I understand that at one time the plan was in jeopardy for financial reasons, but now the district has plenty of money and it is safe. </p>
<p>Kids were identified in elementary school by testing or by teacher, parent or self nomination. There was some follow up to confirm (or deny!). Kids were chosen twice a year through eighth grade I believe. </p>
<p>On balance the program was worthwhile, but it was uneven in execution. The elementary program was outstanding in large part due to the school’s coordinator, who was creative, empathic, charismatic, everything you would want. The middle school program was weaker. I think the biggest problem was that the teachers had to give the kids grades, which led to more of a “right answer” approach to projects.</p>
<p>Maybe the most helpful part of the program was that it let gifted kids meet each other across classes.</p>
<p>Our S was reading when he was 3. The preschool and public schools didn’t really know what to do with him. Fortunately, in 6th grade, he had a teacher who had known him since birth and made him a tech asst for the lab, as well as put him in charge of the school yearbook, so he could teach everyone in school to take photos and use new scanner. He also independently finished the math book as soon as the teachers allowed him & peers to proceed thru it at their own pace and did a lot of independent reading and other activities that interested him.</p>
<p>Computers were great for him, as he could read US Supreme Court decisions and all sorts of news on-line as much and often as he wanted. He also taught himself to program and a lot of other skills. He did not want nor receive much ‘enrichment’ in public or private school, as he preferred time to do what interested him. We were glad he was self-motivated and found a great deal to engage him.</p>
<p>He also had a mentor he enjoyed in his AP physics courses, which may have influenced him to pursue EE in college. It would be pretty amazing if our community, state and nation would EVER provide our gifted kids with tools that would allow them to grow more than whatever families and kids can come up with on their own. I don’t see that as at all likely, especially as so much of our funding is increasingly sucked into autism services, special ed, corrections and other services. </p>
<p>The theory is always that the brightest kids already have so many gifts, why do they need more?</p>
<p>Oh, we have such a plan also. Students are screened and labeled, then put right back into the classrooms they came from. In elementary school, after they’ve waited a few years to be noticed, there will be a teacher who comes into their normal classroom, to work with the students who passed the screening process–and also those who didn’t, so the whole screening process is actually irrelevant. This “push-in” system also means the gifted kids don’t have the opportunity to meet or work with gifted kids from other classes. Each kid can expect to receive approximately 45 hours of such instruction–in 13 years of schooling. That’s not per year. That’s a lifetime total. It’s completely insignificant.</p>
<p>(Caveat: Our D is bright, but not gifted. She was not in the elementary gifted program but was in the more watered-down gifted group in junior high.) I would say that in general the kids in the early-identified gifted group in our large suburban school district sort of get evened-out by high school in most subjects, even science. That makes me question the effectiveness of the program, though, not the need for more gifted education.</p>
<p>BUT there is one area that our school’s gifted program seems to be a rising tide that is lifting all (or at least a lot of) boats—math. Just five years ago when D was in 7th grade there were one or two students taking geometry and the high school track ended with CalcB/C. Now, in order to keep up with growing numbers of kids advancing more quickly in math (most of whom are coming from the gifted program), they’ve added multivariable calc to the regular high school curriculum and one or two more are being considered for next year (IIRC linear algebra and/or differential equations). From what I’ve seen, kids who are not in the gifted program are benefitting from this as well. Where D’s level, ending with Calc B/C was the “fast track” five years ago and something that a lot of “average” kids were discouraged from pursuing, now it’s “normal” and not nearly so intimidating. </p>
<p>The county where I live offers nothing for gifted kids and very little for bright kids. My kids are very bright but not gifted, and we sent them to private school so they would have more opportunity. I love what @elliemom says about adding gifted programs increasing opportunities for more than just the gifted - I do believe this is true. However, when my county tried to start a public high school that partnered with the local, highly regarded private university, that would provide great opportunities for the academically advanced, there was tremendous public outcry about using public school funding for a program seen as “elitist”, and “only for the snobby faculty kids”. It was amazing how many people claimed it was “illegal” to have separate programs for the academically gifted - when we have a state school of science and math, and school of the arts, that are also highly competitive for admission! It’s frustrating that athletics can cut kids and only take the most gifted, and talented athletes can “play up” levels, but academically talented kids don’t get opportunities because “it’s not fair” to the other students.</p>
<p>Yes, sadly most public school teachers quietly, privately admit that they have to teach to the middle and bottom and basically let the gifted fend for themselves as they are just too few resources. The Ne Child Left Behind Act has made teaching tutoring to the middle and bottom even more mandated, burning out the teachers and exhausting the limited public resources.</p>
<p>Kids who don’t have ready access to enrichment resources at home or in their communities have no advocates in our public schools, sadly. Even our private HS doesn’t have any math beyond AP Calculus BC; it does have AP Physics B and also C, as well as 2 AP Com Sci courses and other AP offerings. The tuition has increased now to over $20K per year (it was $10K/yr in 2006); tech is expensive and that is what they are focusing on to keep the kids engaged and competitive in the larger community.</p>
<p>@EllieMom, you are lucky indeed. Our school’s response to having average kids join the fast track was to decree that it’s too hard, and so they severely watered down our high school math program. I didn’t even know there were public schools that offered multivariable classes until I started reading this site. I am just hoping that BC calculus is still there for my younger one and hasn’t died a slow death by dumbing down by the time she is ready for it. Many of our identified gifted kids have to double up on math classes in order to enroll in BC calculus as a senior. </p>
<p>I think most high schools with a large enough student body offer honors classes. I haven’t heard people getting upset about this–it seems quite well accepted. But the idea that younger students should also have access to honors classes is so controversial. If a gifted high school student is bored and unchallenged in a regular-level class, why is it so hard to understand that they were be bored and unchallenged in a regular elementary school classroom? Not sure why there is so much hostility to the idea that kids should get a program that challenges them throughout their education and shouldn’t have to suffer through 9-11 years of boredom until they can take an honors class.</p>
<p>@InigoMontoya, I am not surprised by your story. I think it’s often the parents of the average to above-average kids who are strongly opposed to gifted programs. They don’t want their kids left out of anything and neither do they want programs that might be too difficult for their kids. They refuse to acknowledge that what might be appropriately challenging to their child is painfully boring to another, and the “snob” accusation is freely flung around. We had a situation where a large organized group of parents was trying to restrict my kids’ high school options, simply because they felt it would be too much for their kids, and they didn’t want their kids to look like they did less.</p>
<p>this thread is making me so thankful to my parents for investing in my education and sending me to a tiny independent school, where my largest class was 10 students so this was never an issue, there was time enough to teach and attend to each student on a completely individual basis. Slower children didn’t have to be left behind, nor were ‘gifted’ students unattended to. Thank you mum and dad! I was definitely never grateful enough. Small class sizes are definitely the most ideal way to deal with this, I would say</p>
<p>I went to a tiny private school. I would’ve been better off in public school. My K-8 was SO boring and they did nothing for gifted students. When I went to public high school, I was put into the honors/AP/whatever classes. My high school was fantastic about targeting the high end of the spectrum but we had 6200+ students so they had the resources to specialize. </p>
<p>^^ My experience was just the reverse. I went to tiny private school too, 12 kids in my senior class. However, the school actually went out and hired specific teachers for gifted students. It was tough as nails and great. There were always teachers who could teach lots of college level courses.</p>
<p>Large school size can allow for the “outliers” to have a critical mass to make it worth offering courses for them. This can apply to both high schools and colleges.</p>
<p>Mathyone, just wanted to mention Art ofProblem Solving in case you hadn’t heard of them. Excellent math program for gifted math students and their classes are after school hrs since most of the students are public school students supplementing what they are doing in school <a href=“http://www.artofproblemsolving.com”>http://www.artofproblemsolving.com</a> If the online classes are cost prohibitive, the books are written to the students and the solution manuals are full solutions.</p>
<p>Alcumus is a free supplement they offer for lower levels. They also have forums where kids can hang out and share their love and enthusiasm for all things math and science.</p>
<p>In the context of college admissions, this article seems to make the case that the “best” universities should accept the “best and brightest” students for the good of society. Seems some gifted students get lost due to the resume building aspect of college applications. If objective measures, beyond SATs, are available (USAMO, anyone?), colleges should use them to identify the most gifted.</p>
Most of the very gifted kids we know tried and generally succeeded in getting out of our publics and into private schools, where they could have more of their needs met.</p>