3 ms·

Infuriating. Speaking as someone who moved around a lot as a child, and would be identified as a G&T candidate in each new place if there was such a program av

Infuriating. Speaking as someone who moved around a lot as a child, and would be identified as a G&T candidate in each new place if there was such a program available there; when it wasn't, school was unbearable. In the last 2 years of High School, I stopped going to class, and stopped handing in assignments, and still did well... enough. My teachers liked me, could tell that I didn't belong there, helped out where they could. I think it's helpful to think of G&T kids as having a learning disability. It sounds strange, but if they aren't stimulated, they are miserable, and will not do well in school.

Jtsummers 5y ago
At least in some states, the qualifications and continuing education requirements for teaching in gifted programs (or whatever they choose to call it) is often similar to teaching in special education programs. The students are recognized as being "special needs", not in the sense of needing special attention to get the core curriculum (what most people associate with special needs students), but in needing special attention to not suffer from boredom, act out, or just fail to show up.
- rendall 5y ago
  That's marvelous. I really worry for those kids in NYC.
MisterBastahrd 5y ago
I outscored every single G&T student at my school in both standardized tests AND in final grades. Not only were they not any smarter than most of their classmates, but they had been coddled so much by their labels and their parents that most of them were complete social incompetents. When students were left to their own devices with workbooks, the non-G&T kids quickly caught up and surpassed the G&T kids. One of the silliest things about this entire argument is that there are only a handful of prodigies born every year, and most of the "gifted" kids aren't really any brighter than their classmates, they just get more attention at home.
- rendall 5y ago
  Hard to parse out your assertions, here. > "One of the silliest things about this entire argument is that there are only a handful of prodigies born every year," Are people saying that? > "...and most of the "gifted" kids aren't really any brighter than their classmates, they just get more attention at home." Are you saying that no one is really brighter than anyone else? Or that the G&T kids at your school were mislabeled over others who actually are gifted? > "but they had been coddled so much by their labels..." I actually agree that the narrative told to G&T kids are actively harmful. "You are Gifted and Special" isn't helpful, at least as it's presented. It can lead to an inflated self-worth and insecurity, among other problems. > "...and their parents that most of them were complete social incompetents" Now here you veer into some assumptions that I don't think are fair, but you do seem to be committed to the idea that G&T is not a thing at all. You explain the phenomena, then, as an illusion created by coddling parents?
- twofornone 5y ago
  >One of the silliest things about this entire argument is that there are only a handful of prodigies born every year, and most of the "gifted" kids aren't really any brighter than their classmates, they just get more attention at home This is extremely toxic dogma and your anecdote does not disprove the fact that competence is roughly normally distributed. If we do not collectively acknowledge this fact and allocate extra resources to high achievers, we are handicapping our society in some misguided pursuit of an impossible equitable utopia.
  - MisterBastahrd 5y ago
    It's extremely accurate. Almost all kids who are in accelerated programs are there because they already HAVE extra resources at home. These are the people who are going to be ahead anyway. I'd rather lift the bottom up first, which is where the opportunity to benefit society the most lies, and then worry about using additional resources on the top.

Jtsummers 5y ago

At least in some states, the qualifications and continuing education requirements for teaching in gifted programs (or whatever they choose to call it) is often similar to teaching in special education programs. The students are recognized as being "special needs", not in the sense of needing special attention to get the core curriculum (what most people associate with special needs students), but in needing special attention to not suffer from boredom, act out, or just fail to show up.

rendall 5y ago
That's marvelous. I really worry for those kids in NYC.

MisterBastahrd 5y ago

I outscored every single G&T student at my school in both standardized tests AND in final grades. Not only were they not any smarter than most of their classmates, but they had been coddled so much by their labels and their parents that most of them were complete social incompetents. When students were left to their own devices with workbooks, the non-G&T kids quickly caught up and surpassed the G&T kids. One of the silliest things about this entire argument is that there are only a handful of prodigies born every year, and most of the "gifted" kids aren't really any brighter than their classmates, they just get more attention at home.

rendall 5y ago
Hard to parse out your assertions, here. > "One of the silliest things about this entire argument is that there are only a handful of prodigies born every year," Are people saying that? > "...and most of the "gifted" kids aren't really any brighter than their classmates, they just get more attention at home." Are you saying that no one is really brighter than anyone else? Or that the G&T kids at your school were mislabeled over others who actually are gifted? > "but they had been coddled so much by their labels..." I actually agree that the narrative told to G&T kids are actively harmful. "You are Gifted and Special" isn't helpful, at least as it's presented. It can lead to an inflated self-worth and insecurity, among other problems. > "...and their parents that most of them were complete social incompetents" Now here you veer into some assumptions that I don't think are fair, but you do seem to be committed to the idea that G&T is not a thing at all. You explain the phenomena, then, as an illusion created by coddling parents?
twofornone 5y ago
>One of the silliest things about this entire argument is that there are only a handful of prodigies born every year, and most of the "gifted" kids aren't really any brighter than their classmates, they just get more attention at home This is extremely toxic dogma and your anecdote does not disprove the fact that competence is roughly normally distributed. If we do not collectively acknowledge this fact and allocate extra resources to high achievers, we are handicapping our society in some misguided pursuit of an impossible equitable utopia.
- MisterBastahrd 5y ago
  It's extremely accurate. Almost all kids who are in accelerated programs are there because they already HAVE extra resources at home. These are the people who are going to be ahead anyway. I'd rather lift the bottom up first, which is where the opportunity to benefit society the most lies, and then worry about using additional resources on the top.