Is "gifted" and "smart" overused?

[ladyaudley]

My mother used to say "There is a difference between having a high IQ and being smart. You can have a high IQ and do very little with it". Yes, she took me to be tested when I was little to determine whether to send me to school a year early. She was told she could and she didn't, because she wanted me to stay with my friends. I was frequently bored throughout school but had the immense luck of having fantastic teachers willing to give me extra work to keep me interested, since our primary school didn't have a program for overachieving children. I then went to boarding school on a scholarship based on both my school and social performance which was renewed every year.

I have since worked as a summer camp teacher in that same boarding school and yes, the term is overused. In four years, there were a lot of smart children, but only one or two I would call gifted. Children who were able of abstraction way beyond the level of their peers, with a grasp that made everything seem effortless to them and an almost insatiable hunger for more knowledge.

I find that in Europe it's less the fundies and more the late birthing, one-child academic mothers who see their one offspring with the pretentious name ( Amadeus, anyone? TARQUIN??) as the pinnacle of their career and surely above average. It's the sad idea that average is somehow reprehensible, not perfectly, well, average and fine and something to work with.

[2xx1xy1JD]

There are pros and cons to streaming/tracking.

In my kids' school, they made the decision to stream the Jewish studies subjects because those are taught primarily in Hebrew, and having kids with different abilities in the teaching language was seen as being really hard. The lower streams get more English instruction in those subjects.

With math and English, there is streaming within the non-streamed classes. Kids may read at their own level, or be part of a reading group geared to their own level. In those subjects, you really can't have the teacher deliver one lesson that will suit everybody. My son, for example, had a horrible kindergarten year and wasn't reading AT ALL at the start of grade one. He needed intense remedial help. His sister, OTOH, had already mastered much of the grade one reading curriculum in kindergarten. There is no way that students at such different levels could have been taught together in a class which didn't allow for different groups or individual progress.

About school smarts vs. real life smarts: Things are a bit different now, but when I went to school, I did my best when I was shunned by all the other kids. With no one to talk to me, I focused on my work, got the answers on my own, and made straight A's. I was also completely miserable, and completely lacking in basic social skills. (Yes, I was your stereotypical nerd.) Silently working on your own is not how things are done in the real working world. I had to learn how to pick up a phone, send an email, speak to colleagues, network, etc. Those skills will come far more easily to the kid that's always talking. The other irony is that I would get in trouble for reading. The lessons that I was ignoring are mostly obsolete now, but the fact that I can read and comprehend very quickly is something that I use everyday.

[Trynn]

I WISH there had been some sort of advanced reading class at my school. I was always so bored in reading class... and I used to get in huge trouble when I would work ahead in my workbook because I was BORED.

I wasn't great at a lot of other subjects, however. For the most part, academics are NOT my strong point.

So I'm kinda divided on the issue...

Heh. Kinda funny, but my 3rd grade teacher used to come up and ask me, during silent reading time, about the books I was reading. I didn't think much about it at the time, but later I would find out that she was impressed with the way I could read. Apparently other kids my age were still reading children's picture books, but I was reading books like Little House on the Prairie, and then I picked up a book about engineers.

When I found out she had really been trying to asses my reading skills, I was a bit less amused at the situation.

[Morton Fan]

Well, we're all geniuses, but I didn't want to make you feel bad ;)

:)

[Morton Fan]

Well, I was kind of thinking about that. My brother and I were both identified as Gifted in early elementary school, through testing and the like. By the time we hit high school he was a National Merit Scholar, I was a National Merit Commended student. He was the student that all teachers loved having in their classrooms, me on the other hand, well I am ADHD, and even showed some Autistic behaviors when I was younger.... My sister is smart, and she's gifted in art, but she got her good grades by working hard, not because it was easy for her. We were a truly lucky family and our IQ scores show that. And I do think my sister had it hard after my brother and I. I had it hard enough being my brother's sister and compared to him. My parents were very careful to not let us think that we were anything special, and I didn't even realize how uncommon the National Merit honors were until I was a few years into undergrad.

As a teacher, I've had some very bright students and a handful of students who strike me as gifted, but most students are average.

See, this is kind of what I'm referring to. Yes, statistically there might be a handful of gifted students in anyy given class, and most that are average. But in order for there to be an average, there also must be some that fall (gasp) below average. No one ever identifies themselves or their children as below-average. Average has become below-average, which means that gifted has become average, really. So the terms are so watered-down that almost everybody can qualify themselves as being smart or gifted in some way. JMHO. :)

[ladyaudley]

It seems that lots of posters seem to agree with the original poster ... but don't fail to mention how smart they, their children, or their spouse is.

I, for one, mentioned it to show that I have insight into what it can be like to be treated as "gifted". I wouldn't call myself gifted or smart. Intelligent, yes and more importantly well and throroughly educated, yes, but not gifted.

I do find that "average" children are the ones who are the worst off in schools. You get the "gifted" stream and the "needs extra encouragement" stream, but the rest are largely left to muddle on their own. Who says that just because you're not in the other two categories you should also only receive average stimulation?

[Turtle]

Thing is though - I think ALL kids don't do as well if they're not challenged, whether they are learning faster than the middle group OR slower than the middle group. Kids need to have a challenge, have it assessed intelligently, do projects involving problem-solving and design (not just multiple choice tests out of a can), get feedback on their creativity, and be praised for solving problems so they're excited to take on a challenge - WHATEVER their current challenge level might be.

But too often, those things are reserved for the "gifted" kids. It's not just that the level of the class is different, the entire quality of the class is different. The children are treated differently, too.

Meanwhile I'm also kinda amused at how many people (at least on mommy blogs) seem to think it's some sort of amazing thing that a kid reads earlier than average. Is it a good thing? Sure. Hopefully the kid learns to love reading, too. (Plus the earlier a kid can read, the earlier a kid can amuse HIMSELF!!! says this lazy babysitter.) But the thing is, the other kids DO catch up. By the time we're all 20, no one really cares who learned to read at 3 and who waited until they started school at 7.

As for praising kids, in my experience in school and at home the praise was for what we DID "wow you did it" "wow you solved it" "wow you worked hard at that" or "that was some good insight!" but not so much "wow you're smart."

I have mom friends who are obsessed with their kids being "early readers". They agonize over phonics vs sight words, practice reading every day with their preschoolers, pay for reading tutors, ect. I think all that is a recipe for a stressed child with a bad association with reading. The kid might know how to read at 3-4, but that typically just means they've been taught to read, not that they are brighter than another kid who hasn't yet been taught.

Read to your kid. Let her chose the books, cuddle up and read aloud. Let her develop her reading skills at her own pace. You might not get a super speshul mommy pat on the back for having an "early reader", but you will be giving your child the best chance at a lifelong love of reading, which will help them succeed in whatever field they chose.

I do understand why some parents want the gifted label for their kid if they live in a crummy school district. It can be the difference between learning and being babysat at school. But that's a damn shame and a huge part of the problem. In my opinion, I'd be more likely to homeschool a "normal" child in that situation than one with the "gifted" label.

[mockingbird]

Rosa, what you describe about the lack of support is why my parents chose not to have my sister tested for the public school "gifted" program or pulled out for some 4th and 5th grade classes. They don't seem to offer much support to the kids and actually have a history of turning out kids with behavior problems. I think it used to be good when some of my high school friends went through it, but now many of the kids who got into it in elementary school are not taking the honors/AP courses later in school as would be expected. It could be the crop of kids but from what we have heard, it also seems like they don't try to teach coping skills/social skills or challenge the kids. My sister also does not like to have to work at things, and she has always been much more interested in the social aspects of school. So keeping her with her friends was more of a priority.

Vex, your school definitely sounds toxic! And I agree too much pressure either way can be harmful. My dermatologist was forced into going to med school by her parents because she was "smart" (and also because that's considered a prestigious job in their culture) and she says med school and residency were all too intense for her. All she wanted to do was be a stay at home mom! Yes, you need a back-up plan but med school is not really a "back up". She works part-time so she can be more involved with her kids. She doesn't think she is particularly smart either, she thinks her job is just a lot of memorizing and there are specialties where she would have to "think" more so would be more challenging to work in. I think she chose dermatology because it was a speciality that would enable her to spend more time with her family. I do think my family was supportive on the whole, so any pressure I put on myself could just be my personality. I definitely think there are worse family and school situations either way... because you are "smart" or because you are "not".

On the topic of reading early, my neighbor is a kindergarten teacher and the competition around that drives her crazy. She also doesn't like some of the curriculum changes that want kids to be good readers by the end of Kindergarten. I think she said the normal age for kids to start reading is anywhere from 4-7 and there is nothing wrong with being on the older end of that spectrum, so she doesn't want to have to push kids who aren't ready yet or for parents to think their kids are "delayed".

I'm sure the "more resources" thing varies by school or district.

My hometown was middle class/upper middle class so I think a lot of the "gifted" thing is just keeping up with the Joneses and wanting to have status in the community and look better than everyone else. It's not a fundy thing although we do have our "resident fundy". She is more into teacher-bashing, though ;) (I don't know WHY she doesn't just homeschool! Y'all know a woman of God does not need to expose her children to Satanic teachers for 8 hours a day when she can teach them all about Jesus at the comfort of her dining room table! ;) )

[Morton Fan]

Rosa, what you describe about the lack of support is why my parents chose not to have my sister tested for the public school "gifted" program or pulled out for some 4th and 5th grade classes. They don't seem to offer much support to the kids and actually have a history of turning out kids with behavior problems. I think it used to be good when some of my high school friends went through it, but now many of the kids who got into it in elementary school are not taking the honors/AP courses later in school as would be expected. It could be the crop of kids but from what we have heard, it also seems like they don't try to teach coping skills/social skills or challenge the kids. My sister also does not like to have to work at things, and she has always been much more interested in the social aspects of school. So keeping her with her friends was more of a priority.

Vex, your school definitely sounds toxic! And I agree too much pressure either way can be harmful. My dermatologist was forced into going to med school by her parents because she was "smart" (and also because that's considered a prestigious job in their culture) and she says med school and residency were all too intense for her. All she wanted to do was be a stay at home mom! Yes, you need a back-up plan but med school is not really a "back up". She works part-time so she can be more involved with her kids. She doesn't think she is particularly smart either, she thinks her job is just a lot of memorizing and there are specialties where she would have to "think" more so would be more challenging to work in. I think she chose dermatology because it was a speciality that would enable her to spend more time with her family. I do think my family was supportive on the whole, so any pressure I put on myself could just be my personality. I definitely think there are worse family and school situations either way... because you are "smart" or because you are "not".

On the topic of reading early, my neighbor is a kindergarten teacher and the competition around that drives her crazy. She also doesn't like some of the curriculum changes that want kids to be good readers by the end of Kindergarten. I think she said the normal age for kids to start reading is anywhere from 4-7 and there is nothing wrong with being on the older end of that spectrum, so she doesn't want to have to push kids who aren't ready yet or for parents to think their kids are "delayed".

I'm sure the "more resources" thing varies by school or district.

My hometown was middle class/upper middle class so I think a lot of the "gifted" thing is just keeping up with the Joneses and wanting to have status in the community and look better than everyone else. It's not a fundy thing although we do have our "resident fundy". She is more into teacher-bashing, though ;) (I don't know WHY she doesn't just homeschool! Y'all know a woman of God does not need to expose her children to Satanic teachers for 8 hours a day when she can teach them all about Jesus at the comfort of her dining room table! ;) )

:lol:

[Jinger Jar]

In my educational world, the term gifted is a way to identify students who need accommodations in the way teachers deliver curricula. This may mean accelerated instruction, more hands-on/experiential learning experiences/projects, independent learning assignments, etc. In their need for differentiated instruction, GATE students are a lot like special education students. Like SPED, GATE is neither better nor worse than the mainstream programs; it's simply another way to try to meet the needs of a wildly diverse student population. Gifted students are no more "geniuses" than special education students are "stupid". Both groups need accommodations that other students may not, although personally I think many of the techniques GATE and SPED teachers use are beneficial to all learners.

From a professional angle, GATE is a teaching specialization, like SPED and English Learners. GATE teachers receive professional development geared toward their particular situation, belong to separate professional organizations, and - especially at the elementary level - can teach in GATE schools.

Not surprisingly, GATE is a funding stream for public schools where I live.

From a personal standpoint, I've only known one family who's pulled their kids out of brick and mortar school and their kids were truly were too gifted for the schools to handle. Mom is a colleague of mine, and both she and her husband are themselves scary smart. They decided to homeschool their daughters from early elementary on, and both kids had enough credits to graduate from high school by the time they were 14. They attended a local junior college for two years for psycho-social reasons, but at sixteen both were in Ivy League schools. Today one is a physician, research scientist, and tenured professor at a different Ivy League, and the other is youngest partner in the history of her law firm. Again, this is the only instance I've experienced in 25+ years of teaching.

[libmomj]

Ugh...I hate the term "gifted".

My daughter attends a Montessori-ish charter school because it was evident very early on that she had some "learning differences". The whole-child approached seemed much easier to navigate than a bunch of IEP's and such. The school caters to both ends of the educational spectrum and throws 40 kids of varying abilities into a large, pre-school style room with 2 teachers. They work independently at their own level on some tasks and cooperatively in small groups on others.

The one thing I hate about it is this: twice a year we must sit through a meeting with the gifted education consultant to set goals and...blah, blah, blah. She is obsessed with "mindset", creating challenges, learning to fail, etc. And I get it, I really do. I am the physical embodiment of her most deeply held concerns. Once upon a time, she was head of gifted education in the highly respected public school district from which I graduated top 5%. She is now so militantly "mindset" driven that I have to wonder if a great many of my classmates also flopped (I dropped out of college 3 times and didn't even earn an associate's degree til after 30) out in the great big world.

As a parent, I have never held the misconception that early academic success=high lifetime achievement. I...know better. She, however, now views all "gifted" children as high-anxiety, afraid-to-fail, perfectionists and approaches any academic problems my daughter has through this lens. But my daughter is not just her IQ score, her larger issue is ADHD. She's totally uninhibited and fails at the most mundane tasks multiple times a day -- developing grit is not her issue. I don't need to be told, "acknowledge the effort not the outcome." Half of our household has ADHD: any sustained effort is damn near ice-cream worthy!

The teachers have been great. We've learned through trial and error that my daughter can handle rather complex material in small chunks, and they let her progress with some appropriate accommodations. Proficiency can be proved with ten story problems that require critical thinking just as well as with a basic thirty problem work sheet.

Forgive my rant. All this to say, I've never experienced anything good to come from the "gifted" label. We should just give it up and treat children as individuals. I think we'd be better off as a society to expose all children to lots of subjects, technologies, and arts than to place them on academic tracks. After all, it's interest and passion that drives people to deeper understanding and greatness, not academic aptitude alone.

[JesusFightClub]

Hm, well I can approach it from the other angle, having experienced the delights of Special Ed, the class known as "Maths for the Thick" and repeated IQ and other testing throughout my childhood. When I was in primary school, in P5 (9/10 yo) the teacher ranked us according to intelligence as to where we sat in the class. The most intelligent sat in the back row and it went all the way down until the thickest sat at the front "where I can keep an eye on pupils who struggle with academic work". I was in the very front seat.

Don't think that Special Ed is better funded, at least not in my experience. There were people in there who really needed 5 days a week full time special ed and they didn't get it cause the school couldn't afford the teachers. I questioned the value of releasing kids from Sp. Ed to German class when they couldn't actually write in English. And of course there's the stigma - I was released to Sp.Ed every week from until I left school at 18 and I was still blushing when the messenger showed up in one of my classes to fetch me to the classroom, cause everyone knows where you're going and why.

There is a definite tendency IMO for some parents to excuse badly behaved children who act up in class and elsewhere as "little Alfie's just soooo intelligent/gifted, he's sooooo bored in his class you know". I have also noticed many parents blame the teacher for absolutely everything from their child's poor grades to their behaviour to their dress and (lack) of morals. It's like they're just the childminders in their heads and the teachers are the parents, expected to take on the role of training up the child in the way they should go.

[tingeofginge]

I saw so many negative effects of the gifted label, I would avoid it at nearly all costs for my child. I was in the generation that was labeled TAG/Gifted and told we were smart and then offered no coping skills for when we hit the level we had to expend more effort at - most of the kids i was in gifted classes with crashed and burned at some point, whether it was college, grad school, or the professional world - if you keep progressing, you are eventually going to get to the point where you're not above average in the company you keep.

First, I haven't read past this, so I'm sorry if somebody has already said this. And it is also going to be quite disjointed as my head is foggy this morning.

This is exactly what tracking done well should prevent. It should be giving kids enough of a challenge that they actually have to work. I agree with the poster who said that ALL kids need challenge--however, since most kids are average they are generally challenged by the regular curriculum. Tracking should not be about labeling kids, it should be about teaching them at the correct rate and level. A lot of states (mine included) don't fund gifted ed, so properly done tracking would be a good way for every kid to get what he/she needs inexpensively.

Another thought I had, regarding early reading--I'm sorry I can't remember who brought it up. Anyway, if it is self-taught it really can be a marker of exceptional ability. I'm not saying a 4 year old who teaches him/herself to read should be considered gifted. But, for example, my son taught himself to read just shy of 2 1/2 (I had always been strongly against trying to teach preschoolers academics but he had other ideas lol). That wasn't the only indication that his brain might be wired a bit different from the norm, but it was one of the biggest. That also reminds me that so many people don't really get that gifted (defined as being 2 standard deviations above normal--130+ IQ) is a difference in how the brain learns. Not better, just different.

Oh, and I totally agree with everyone saying that hard work is more important that innate ability. This is something that I am already having to re-teach my son (in 3rd grade) because he doesn't want to do anything that he thinks is hard.

[tingeofginge]

In my educational world, the term gifted is a way to identify students who need accommodations in the way teachers deliver curricula. This may mean accelerated instruction, more hands-on/experiential learning experiences/projects, independent learning assignments, etc. In their need for differentiated instruction, GATE students are a lot like special education students. Like SPED, GATE is neither better nor worse than the mainstream programs; it's simply another way to try to meet the needs of a wildly diverse student population. Gifted students are no more "geniuses" than special education students are "stupid". Both groups need accommodations that other students may not, although personally I think many of the techniques GATE and SPED teachers use are beneficial to all learners.

Yes, this is exactly what I wanted to say, but couldn't find the words.

[bluelady]

Don't think that Special Ed is better funded, at least not in my experience. There were people in there who really needed 5 days a week full time special ed and they didn't get it cause the school couldn't afford the teachers.

With Special Ed, the way it works here is that the school gets extra funding based on the number of students on IEP and the level of that IEP. So, if we have 10 kids on IEP, we would get extra funding for those 10 kids. If 7 of those kids were level 1 funded and the other 3 were level 3 funded (requiring more resources), we would get more for the level 3 funded kids than the level one. Same goes for AP programs. The school gets extra funds depending on how many AP courses a school runs per year.

HOWEVER, that goes into the school's overall budget. While it's earmarked for Special Ed or AP, I really think principals sometimes use that money for other things. Sometimes those other things are necessary to make the school a better place for all students. Sometimes they aren't.

[yewchapel]

First, I haven't read past this, so I'm sorry if somebody has already said this. And it is also going to be quite disjointed as my head is foggy this morning.

This is exactly what tracking done well should prevent. It should be giving kids enough of a challenge that they actually have to work. I agree with the poster who said that ALL kids need challenge--however, since most kids are average they are generally challenged by the regular curriculum. Tracking should not be about labeling kids, it should be about teaching them at the correct rate and level. A lot of states (mine included) don't fund gifted ed, so properly done tracking would be a good way for every kid to get what he/she needs inexpensively.

Another thought I had, regarding early reading--I'm sorry I can't remember who brought it up. Anyway, if it is self-taught it really can be a marker of exceptional ability. I'm not saying a 4 year old who teaches him/herself to read should be considered gifted. But, for example, my son taught himself to read just shy of 2 1/2 (I had always been strongly against trying to teach preschoolers academics but he had other ideas lol). That wasn't the only indication that his brain might be wired a bit different from the norm, but it was one of the biggest. That also reminds me that so many people don't really get that gifted (defined as being 2 standard deviations above normal--130+ IQ) is a difference in how the brain learns. Not better, just different.

Oh, and I totally agree with everyone saying that hard work is more important that innate ability. This is something that I am already having to re-teach my son (in 3rd grade) because he doesn't want to do anything that he thinks is hard.

These and Jinger Jar's posts are really good. I know I could have *really* done with more learning support at school. There were other issues for me at school which didn't help, like bullying (unrelated to any gifted status), but it would have helped a lot to have more assistance.

Really, the whole 'gifted' thing (as in learning differently, not the label) has just caused problems for me.

[2xx1xy1JD]

Hm, well I can approach it from the other angle, having experienced the delights of Special Ed, the class known as "Maths for the Thick" and repeated IQ and other testing throughout my childhood. When I was in primary school, in P5 (9/10 yo) the teacher ranked us according to intelligence as to where we sat in the class. The most intelligent sat in the back row and it went all the way down until the thickest sat at the front "where I can keep an eye on pupils who struggle with academic work". I was in the very front seat.

Don't think that Special Ed is better funded, at least not in my experience. There were people in there who really needed 5 days a week full time special ed and they didn't get it cause the school couldn't afford the teachers. I questioned the value of releasing kids from Sp. Ed to German class when they couldn't actually write in English. And of course there's the stigma - I was released to Sp.Ed every week from until I left school at 18 and I was still blushing when the messenger showed up in one of my classes to fetch me to the classroom, cause everyone knows where you're going and why.

There is a definite tendency IMO for some parents to excuse badly behaved children who act up in class and elsewhere as "little Alfie's just soooo intelligent/gifted, he's sooooo bored in his class you know". I have also noticed many parents blame the teacher for absolutely everything from their child's poor grades to their behaviour to their dress and (lack) of morals. It's like they're just the childminders in their heads and the teachers are the parents, expected to take on the role of training up the child in the way they should go.

Once again, your school was simply fucked up in how they did everything.

Yes, kids are aware of which are the high and low groups, but you don't arrange seating by IQ! In any event, IQ scores tell you nothing about which kids can work fine on their own and which need a teacher to keep a close eye on them.

[Ralar]

My school district no longer calls the "Gifted" program GT. It is now AAP (Advanced Academic Program). Although it is still commonly referred to as GT, I feel AAP more acurately reflects the program. My child has thrived in the program. I've been told by teachers, guidance counselors, psychologists and other parents that she is "scary smart." Does that make her "gifted?" I have no idea. I'm sure my child is gifted in something. But, I know she is academically advanced. With an IQ in the 98th percentile, my child has the potential to be extermely successful, but raw intelligence is not going to automatically guarantee success.

I'm thankful for a program that challenges my child (her grades are up and down -- mostly B's, with a few A's mixed in). I am not so thrilled with some of the parents who feel that nothing is good enough, or advanced enough, for their Gifted and Talented Geniuses -- the parents who complain that the teachers in our district (one of the top ranked school districts in the U.S.) don't know how to teach their GT Geniuses, and there are not enough advanced classes for their GT Geniuses.

[YPestis]

YPestis, whether you like it or not, there is a definition of the word gifted, and it doesn't change depending on what you or I or some chick who's coached her child to read before they're ready wants it to mean. It's defined by whatever school your child attends as some score over a certain amount on whatever measure they choose to use. And although you disagree, that never means that only those higher than 99.99% qualify (I had an almost in there, but I took it out because I can't think of any at all who put the cutoff that high). In New York, being in the top 10% of scores on the OLSAT means you're gifted. If you're at 93% and attend school somewhere else you probably won't be gifted. It's like creationists insisting evolution's just a theory.

You view "gifted" as a term used by schools using tests as a measuring stick. However, there is no uniformed, defined view of "gifted". According to the National Association of Gifted Children website:

NAGC estimates that there are approximately 3 million academically gifted children in grades K-12 in the U.S - approximately 6% of the student population. No federal agency or organization collects these student statistics; the number is generated based on an estimate that dates back to the 1972 Maryland Report to Congress, which estimated that 5-7% of school children are "capable of high performance" and in need of "services or activities not normally provided by the school."

The NAGC acknowledges that there is no defined term for "gifted", no federal guidelines, and that states can have varying measuring sticks for what counts as gifted education. The American Academy of Pediatrics have no measurable tools (that I know of) that measures gifted kids. A school can say those who tested this well are 'gifted', but that is not a medical definition, nor a national standard. You and I can argue about what defines it, but educators do not have monopoly on the definition of "gifted". "Gifted" is not a term like ADHD where there are national guidelines for pediatricians to diagnose with. In that regard, there is no accepted term for gifted.

(OT, I'm not sure why you are comparing me to a creationist)

There is a definite correlation between socioeconomic status and IQ, and there's a correlation between certain jobs and IQ.

....

And since IQ is genetic, the children of smart people are also smart. So ifyou have a town with lots of smart adults for whatever reason, whether it's high property prices (damned bankers) or a research facility like Los Alamos there will be more smart kids in the schools.

I'm not talking about correlation between education and high achieving kids. High achievement is produced from hard work and a nurturing environment. These are external factors. It is NOT raw intelligence. Being "smart" or "gifted" is an inborn talent. The human brain is able to make neuron connections quicker or access information faster.

When you state that some schools have higher number of 'gifted" kids, that doesn't mean all those kids are naturally born with high intelligence. They are the product of nurturing received from their parents. Nurturing that talent can contribute to rising test scores, which can contribute to better "preparedness".

You state that smart people will have smart children. Perhaps over successive generations, those with more brain plasticity, more neuron synapses will see that translated into higher achievements. However, that is not a genetic jump we make in a couple of generations.

In other words, unless these smart kids at Los Alamos have several generations of physicists' blood running through them, they are statistically likely to be born as 'average' as the rest of the population. Any increase in test scores is most likely the result of better test preparations, better schools, better education focused home environment.

Also, you are alluding to changes occurring over an entire population which would take generations to occur over an enclosed environment (Hardy-Weinberg principle). If I rounded up a bunch of physicists and let them only breed with each other, then it stands that their 'gifted gene' would result in increases in raw intelligence after many generations. However, our society is not an enclosed environment and we constantly intermingle with 'average' people. Therefore, our genotype do not differentiate that quickly. We are not breeding a bunch of super-gifted smarties at Los Alamos or Johns Hopkins.

[darareaksmey]

What a great thread. As the parent of two teens and a non-educator who graduated high school in the 70's (and thus predated alot of the AP/GT/Gifted identification that has been instituted since), I can tell you that it was 100% C-R-R-R-R-U-S-H-I-N-G to me when neither of my children qualified for the GT programs in their elementary or middle schools. I did not want to acknowledge that mine were plain old average kids, esp. when their friends got in the program and I began to be treated to descriptions of how "wonderful" and "challenging" it was by their moms. A major, major blow to my ego.

But I learned so much by having plain old "average" kids. First, it was karma coming back to bite me in the ass, because I had been considered whatever GT was in my high school and I was damn insufferable about being smart. Second, I learned a lot about motivating my kids to succeed, and to redefine what they should consider success. Unlike me, they weren't in school to try to beat their BFF's score on the science test, even by one point. Having their parents at all interested/involved in their school day means a ton to them; it's something I never had.

These days my son is a C student when things are going well. He has changed--I refuse to say lowered--his expectations for life after high school, from marine biologist to a career in the Air Force. I am no less proud of him for figuring out a goal and figuring out how to attain it. His younger sister, still in middle school, wants to be a nurse but still struggles with science and the jury is still out on whether her expectations will change. She is a bit more academically motivated than her brother so I hope not. But I've learned to tell them, just focus on whether what you are doing is propelling you along to your ultimate goal, not, how dare you not bring home straight A's. That is what my mom would have said had a poor academic performance by me forced her to spend a microsecond involved in her kid's schooling.

[August]

Ypestis, I would like you to go and read about achievement and IQ. They're two entirely separate and different things, and when you conflate them, you end up speaking gibberish. It's like you keep switching interchangeably between tall and fat. Different things, nit necessarily rekated in any way shape or form.

[gardenvarietycitizen]

This is exactly what tracking done well should prevent. It should be giving kids enough of a challenge that they actually have to work. I agree with the poster who said that ALL kids need challenge--however, since most kids are average they are generally challenged by the regular curriculum. Tracking should not be about labeling kids, it should be about teaching them at the correct rate and level. A lot of states (mine included) don't fund gifted ed, so properly done tracking would be a good way for every kid to get what he/she needs inexpensively.

If it really were only about the correct rate and level, I wouldn't have such a problem with it.

But by me, it isn't. The entire approach to education is different, and better, in the so-called "gifted" program. The number one main difference is in being able to work on themed projects, do group projects involving some sort of creative problem solving, and in getting NUANCED assessments.

That's not about level. That's about actually spending the time and the money to do things right. ALL levels of kids benefit from more complex problem solving assignments, not just the supposedly "gifted" ones or the ones who are doing things at a faster speed. I didn't go to schools in the US and we didn't have any "gifted" class and we all did project based assignments (contrary to the usual stereotypes) and lots of group work.

I mean, the "gifted" first grade class is doing material at an objectively lower level than the "regular" fourth grade class. So you'd think the "regular" fourth graders could handle some of this wonderful stimulation.

As it happens, by me, there are parents (usually upper middle class, often faculty parents) who come right out and state that if their kid doesn't make the cutoff for the "gifted" program, they will be "forced" to send their kids to private schools. They know what the stakes are. Meanwhile there were racial disparities wide enough to cause a federal lawsuit.

While there might in fact be people who are so different in the way they think that school needs to be radically different for them, I don't think that is true of the great number of people who are getting into the "gifted" tracks at least in my area. Are they bright? Sure. But the programs they are getting in their classes aren't anything radical, it's just a good education that ideally all kids would be able to have. But it costs $$$, and lately no one seems to want to pay for it.

Meanwhile in my high school calculus was just standard level math for the last year of high school.

I find worrying about IQ to be a very American thing. I suspect YPestis feels the same. It might be cultural.

[mg78]

I was reading this article about the book by JR Flynn: Are we getting smarter? It is very interesting because it explains that IQ test score doesnt have a true value scale, meaning the number is useless unless you compare it with that year sample population. He also says that skills emphasized at young ages can be deceptive ( like computationa skills and reading skills) and that educators should be aware of that.

In case anybody is interested, it focus how living in complex societies, the development of schooling, and richer parent- children interaction affects IQ values.

I apologize if someone up-thread already posted about this book, but I think that I could be an interest read for many of te posters.

Edited for grammar.

[tingeofginge]

If it really were only about the correct rate and level, I wouldn't have such a problem with it.

But by me, it isn't. The entire approach to education is different, and better, in the so-called "gifted" program. The number one main difference is in being able to work on themed projects, do group projects involving some sort of creative problem solving, and in getting NUANCED assessments.

That's not about level. That's about actually spending the time and the money to do things right. ALL levels of kids benefit from more complex problem solving assignments, not just the supposedly "gifted" ones or the ones who are doing things at a faster speed. I didn't go to schools in the US and we didn't have any "gifted" class and we all did project based assignments (contrary to the usual stereotypes) and lots of group work.

I mean, the "gifted" first grade class is doing material at an objectively lower level than the "regular" fourth grade class. So you'd think the "regular" fourth graders could handle some of this wonderful stimulation.

As it happens, by me, there are parents (usually upper middle class, often faculty parents) who come right out and state that if their kid doesn't make the cutoff for the "gifted" program, they will be "forced" to send their kids to private schools. They know what the stakes are. Meanwhile there were racial disparities wide enough to cause a federal lawsuit.

While there might in fact be people who are so different in the way they think that school needs to be radically different for them, I don't think that is true of the great number of people who are getting into the "gifted" tracks at least in my area. Are they bright? Sure. But the programs they are getting in their classes aren't anything radical, it's just a good education that ideally all kids would be able to have. But it costs $$$, and lately no one seems to want to pay for it.

Meanwhile in my high school calculus was just standard level math for the last year of high school.

I find worrying about IQ to be a very American thing. I suspect YPestis feels the same. It might be cultural.

Yeah, that's why I said "tracking done well," because the schools in your area sound like they are NOT doing it well. Of course that kind of education is the one all kids should be getting. In our district, there is a TAG program, but it is not separate. Supposedly, an education plan is made and then the teacher differentiates. It doesn't work very well in practice, though. There is a tiny bit of tracking in math and reading in elementary.

[mg78]

Not related to the discussion but Hardy Wienberg principle does not apply because it focuses in the frequency distribution of an allele. Intelligence or IQ (although I do not believe that genes play a major role in IQ) is more akin to a complex trait.