[QUOTE=you with the face]
I think people do place a whole lot of unnecessary significance in the “gifted” label. This is not to deny the existence of children who have special needs because of their precocious cognitive skills. But I think in general, most kids that are called gifted are bright kids who are naturally good test takers. Beyond that, from what I’ve seen in my K-12 educational experience, there is little else that makes them different than regular kids.
Growing up, I had the opportunity to see how both sides lived. As monstro mentioned in her first post, my sister and I were odd in that were smart and intellectually curious, as well as exceptionally creative from an early age. Neither one of us were formally placed in the gifted program, though. But every year, when the “gifted” kids were assigned the project of writing a book, my twin and I were invited to participate, because our teachers recognized our talents and interests in this area. This involvement let me see exactly what special things went on in the gifted program, that “non-gifted” kids were not exposed to, while being one of those so-called “non-gifted” kids.
It surprised me (and it still does) to see that most of the enrichment activities tapped into the arts, like drama, creative writing and art appreciation. It made me seriously wonder why only the gifted kids were regularly exposed to this type of stuff. To be labled as gifted, one had to have a certain score on a standardized test, but even as a young kid I knew such scores had nothing to do with creativity. It seemed to me that qualification into the gifted program was one thing, while the program emphasized another. That struck me as not quite right.
Interestingly enough, in fifth grade the gifted kids submitted their books for entry into two state-wide contests. As usual, my sister and I joined in. Only a few from my school were selected for competition. One of them was mine. My sister’s was another. Which goes to show that the labels do not determine a kid’s strengths. Not matter if your kids end up testing as gifted or not, treat them like smart kids. Recognize and nurture their interests and talents. Don’t assume that they will be a certain way just because of the label they are given. I’m glad that my teachers gave me and my sister the opportunity to benefit from the gifted program even though we apparently didn’t qualify as gifted, but it’s kind of a shame that it even had to be like that.
[/QUOTE]
My experience has been very different.
My kids were both placed in the program with no testing - just teacher recommendations. I was the same - and there were kids in the gifted programs at school who didn’t get good grades or score well on tests - and kids that did that weren’t gifted . It seems like the teachers in both my case and my kids case took pains to seperate out “bright” from “does well.”
Gifted kids don’t necessarily test well - in fact they often test poorly because they don’t tend to have patience. And often kids who work hard do well in school, but they aren’t necessarily bright. A kid who gets Cs but never cracks a book and is struggling with ADHD may be more “gifted” than a kid who gets As but spends five hours a night studying.
Our schools also tagged “gifted” as meaning different things. We had kids who were gifted artists - but not good readers or good at math. It was understood that gifts came in different flavors - you may have a gift for writing but none for science. You may be a gifted athelete. Now, the programs available for gifted atheletes were extracurricular (we did have some stuff available in arts and music on more of a statewide level shortly after I graduated that still exist), but gifted meant more than “smart.”
. Then I get to the picture of Britney Spears & KFed, and ds says “Hold on. Wait a minute. Just stop here. Just look here a minute.” So I tore out her picture (explaining that only Mommy is allowed to do this) and gave it to him. He folded the page carefully, held it against his tummy, and said, “I ready to go bed now.”