BTW, you are also right about Tourette Disorder. Standard understanding right now is to peg it to either too much DA or a hypersensitivity of DA receptors (while ADHD is believed to come from too little extracellular DA or hyposensitive receptors). Yet early Tourette Disorder, before the tics become more significant, can present looking just like ADHD. And many of those with Tourette Disorder have attention problems. And many with ADHD have comorbid tic disorders that never reach the criteria for Tourette Disorder (never any vocal component, which can be as mild as throat clearing); and stimulants work for their attention difficulties even as they may exacerbate the tic disorder. You can see why I resort to chaos theory as model! Seriously the idea of merely too much or too little may be popular in the literature but it seems simplistic to me; it strikes me that it matters how much is exactly where and when, from when the wiring is first forming (when differences in amounts will alter the development of the structure itself), to precise location and timing in the fully developed system, not just how much there is, lots or little, in some crude global sense. It seems to me that more violins does not mean a happier symphony, even if it was true that violins play more in happier symphonies - how they play, when they play, matters even more than how many notes they play, yes? The dynamics matter.
We are just not yet equipped with the tools to address those questions in any detail however. Give it a few decades, maybe.
I agree with you that sports are overemphasized in school.
But I would also say that they are more merit-based than gifted programs. One can be a “natural” athlete, or one can be a hard worker that practices his ass off. The two can both be MVPs, still get plenty of play time on the court or field, and still be respected by their school as champions.
In most gifted programs, you get there only by being a so-called “natural”. You can get straight As, turn in the best projects, answer the most questions in class, and be as charming as hell, but if you don’t meet whatever “objective” criterion the school sets for giftedness, you are not getting into the program. Hopefully your efforts will be rewarded with plaques and certificates by the end of the year, and when you go on to high school, you will be eligible to take advanced courses. But you will have to compete for those spots against kids who are entitled to those programs by virture of their test scores, NOT their effort. The sports arena doesn’t have anything like that. It is more of a meritocracy than a gifted program.
Also, in sports if you don’t actually perform well, all the “he’s a natural” stuff is thrown out of the window. No one makes excuses if you don’t actually perform to the expected level. In gifted programs, a blind eye is often turned towards low performance. Suddenly grades don’t matter, nor does deportment. Gifted kids aren’t held to the same standards as everyone else. They don’t “need” to continually take tests to show their worth, as Stink Pot Fish said. Because they’re boring and thus unnecessary for that demographic. Again, there is no analog to this attitude in sports.
If sports were like gifted programs, 2nd graders that were in the 95th percentile for weight and height would be the only ones allowed to be “enriched” with sports, games, and physical training. They would be alloted extra time for recess, they’d be taken out of normal class to practice free throws and fast balls or whatever, and they would be the only allowed to compete in tournaments. Non-gifted kids would have to stay in the classroom and read Charlotte’s Web, do word problems, etc.
Consider that plenty of non-gifted kids might actually be faster runners, better dribblers, or have better hand-eye coordination (as evident by their performance in PE and recess activities) than the so-called gifted kids. They might even be more interested in learning sports than the gifted kids, and have a natural competitive streak that no tape measure or scale can measure. But none of this matters. The experts say these kids aren’t gifted because they aren’t tall or big enough. And that’s how it is.
Twenty years later, would it be surprising that the gifted kids are more likely to be professional atheletes than the non-gifted ones? Of course not. Pathetically, the system was rigged to ensure that outcome from the onset. The gifted kids were cultivated and nurtured while the non-gifted were left to wither in the sun, leaving a playing field so uneven it’s almost a joke to think the latter even had a chance against the former.
I’m sure the folly and unfairness of this is obvious when athleticism–not intelligence–is the quality being discussed. But when it’s intelligence, cognitive dissonance forces us to imbibe the Kool Aid that tells us that kids in the 95th percentile are not only a different species of children than other kids, but that they are more deserving of a good education while other students are not. Maybe, just maybe, this overarching philosophy is why our schools suck so heartily.
The sad part about the whole “Gifted” concept is that every child deserves to be educated to the fullest extent of their ability, regardless of whether they score some specific number on a standardized test. Rather than focus our energies solely on pigeon-holing our children into seperate categories for gifted, or remediation, or learning disabilities, we should be offering all our children whatever resources are needed to achieve the optimal outcome of the supposed goal of education: learning.
I understand that resources are in limited supply, and some system needs to be used to allocate them in the most cost-effective way, but to tell one group of students that they are not getting the education they deserve because they are one point away from some “magic” cut-off is just wrong.
IME, it’s not that lower-achieving kids can’t handle the enrichment; it’s that they can’t handle the time out of class. Lower-achieving kids typically need more time to grasp the concepts involved in, say, reading and math class well enough to stay on grade level (or to not get any further behind). By pulling them out of class on a regular basis, you eat significantly into their instructional time in a core class, which puts them at greater risk for falling behind and needing the other sort of pull-out instruction. That doesn’t strike me as honestly being a child’s best interest.
Also, either you or your sister is almost certainly incorrect about the makeup the gifted classes in your school; 30% of a class is not, by definition, in the 95th percentile.
I would agree with you if we’re just talking about low-achieving kids. Let’s say, kids who test scores fall below the 50th percentile and whose GPA hovers around 2.0 or below.
But kids who score in the 80th percentile or above and who bring home A’s and B’s? I’d need to see evidence that using an hour three times a week to study French or classical art would be against their interest, because I’m pretty doubtful of that. Right now we just assume that it is against their interest, with no science to support it.
For the same reason we put the good athletes on the varsity team. So they can be around peers who share the same abilities and can improve each other’s performance.
There aren’t athletes who continue to play long after their peak?
Speaking as someone who was identified as “gifted”, it actually works both ways as well. I found that if I was not good at something (like Spanish class for example), it wasn’t so much that people turned a blind eye as I was “underachieving” or my performance was “disappointing” given how smart I was. Just because I’m smart doesn’t mean I know everything.
Also, there is more to success than being “smart” or “gifted”. I don’t thing being sequestered with a bunch of nerds and told you are a special gifted snowflake your entire life is all that beneficial. It is far more important to learn key interpersonal skills, work ethic and discipline than to be some sort of human computer.
Um, how would you know that (the last part of your post)?
The percentiles are based on the distribution of all the scores from all the test takers (I am assuming). I don’t know how widespread the Iowa Basic Skill Test was used, but I’m pretty sure it was not limited to our school or school district. Even if it’s use was restricted to the Deep South, where poverty is rampant, then it wouldn’t be too difficult for a smart kid to score high on the exam.
We attended a school where many of the kids were of high SES. So no, it would not shock me at all if 30% or more of the student tested at 95th percentile.
I’m not for treating low-achieving kids like they don’t have problems. However, I don’t think most non-gifted kids are low-performing. Do you? Unless your school serves an unusual demographic, you’re going to find a more-or-less normal distribution of abilities. 3% are going to be low-performers for a variety of reasons (learning disabilities, mental retardation, etc.). 3% are going to be very very bright and would be able to do algebra while the rest of the class was still learning long division. These kids would probably be best served in separate environments all together, but that’s neither here nor there. But that spread in the middle? You’re going to have a mix of abilities. Simply testing at the 95th percentile (or whatever) isn’t going to tell what skills a particular kid is really proficient in. They could be a math wiz, a future poet laureate, or a jack-of-all trades. Lumping them together for a generalized enrichment program homogenizes their abilities, as well as that of the non-gifted (“You didn’t get the magical score, therefore you can’t appreciate the art museum or taking French lessons…even though you do seem to perform well in the arts and languages.”)
If a school is full of high SES students, chances are the curriculum isn’t going to be aimed at kids who score at the 50th percentile anyway, because those kids won’t be the majority at the school. You need to adjust the cut-off based on the baseline of whatever that school is, not the median established from all the test-takers in the pool. If the median for your school is the 70th percentile, then does it make sense to pull out the kids who tested at the 95th? Is there that much of a difference between those kids and the other kids? I would argue that special classes are probably needed much more in schools with low SES student bodies, because the baseline in any particular class will tend to be a lot lower than you’d find elsewhere (below the 50th percentile), and any kid testing at the 95th percentile in those schools WILL suffer educationally. But if the school is your typical middle to upper-middle-class suburban school? I seriously doubt teh gifted there are all that different than the non-gifted.
I don’t know about the schools you attended, but if there was a whole special class dedicated to the slow learners in elementary school and they comprised the same proportion as the “gifted” population, I would be wondering what was in the water.
Do you think the coach would allow a kid who has played “long after their peak” (whatever that means in middle or high school) to play in the big state title game?
Or would he say, “Son, you can come with us, but until you can stop throwing sissy balls, your ass is playing the bench.”
That’s just like being kicked out of the gifted program, for all intents and purposes.
One, I’m sure there are flaws and inefficiencies with the athletics system too.
Two, being “gifted” is not the same as being a good athlete or a good student. It’s based on natural ability, not academic achievement. Being in a gifted program is not a reward for being smart any more than being in a remedial class is a punishment for having problems learning.
monstro addressed this in her post (and I don’t know why I didn’t address this in my first reply to you), but we attended a school where the average household income was well above average. Our school was ranked as one of the best in the district, if not the state. So it’s not implausible for 20-30% students to test in the 95%.
I’d bet most relatively affluent schools are the same way. Let’s say that the typical 3rd grade classroom has 30 students (which is extremely generous). If this classroom exactly mirrored the national distribution of test scores, this means that no more 2 students in that classroom should qualify as gifted.
So the question is how many gifted Dopers here were the only one or two people in their class to qualify as such? Probably no one here can say that. I’m guessing that *at a minimum * there were at least 4 or 5 other people in their class that were also called gifted. In my classroom, there were 10 easily.
“Natural ability” based on an arbitrary metric and an arbitrary criterion. Test scores correlate with ability, but then so does height when it comes to athleticsm. The ability to do well on tests doesn’t tell you the full picture regarding a student’s natural ability or potential. Especially when you’re talking about students who are young kids. Does anyone dispute this?
If each year, nationwide test scores drop, including the topmost percentiles, does the definition of “giftedness” change? What if the average 8 year-old suddenly becomes unable to recognize his own name from a list of choices and can’t even identify the state he lives in. Does this mean that the 8 year-old is who able to do these things exceptionally bright? Of course not. Someone doesn’t suddenly become brilliant just because someone else is deficient.
And so this is another problem with how we define “gifted”. If our schools suck and test scores across the board reflect this suckitude, qualifying as “gifted” simply means not being as mediocre as most other students in the country are. This would not be that much of a feat if most schools are craptastic or borderline craptastic. I think this is the main reason why my school had such a high percentage of kids qualifying as gifted. My school wasn’t craptastic, so the kids there were more likely to be in the top percentiles.
Check out the Atlanta Public School system and other Georgia systems where it has been proven that teachers and officials systematically changed answers on standardized tests to make the Teachers Union and members look better to protect their jobs. What a role model. Ga. has one of the highest $/student ratio and one of the poorest performance records. What is a teacher to do when they are shown to be incompetent? What they have always done it seems, cheat. In the past, they have simply cheated children out of a decent education which has been proven by their own chosen performance tests. Now on to real systemic cheating, change the answers given by the dumb children to make themselves look like real teachers. Don’t the results justify the means? Better test scores even if they are false. How many good teachers have been fired or phased out to allow the herd mentality of mediocrity. Teaching at the level of the slowest student in the class and make up for it by cheating. Disgusting incompetent government ticks.
Clearly different qualities get identified at different ages. I believe budding gymnasts can be identified this early, but not budding football players. The OP was about identification at 4 or 5, which I agree is much too early. End of second grade, however is a reasonable time for identification of giftedness - and our district allows older kids to be included.
Now, by junior high you are probably going to be able to tell who will be good at football and who won’t be.
BTW, it is not hard to get kicked out of honors classes. And, to echo msmith537 though I was in extra honors English, history and math, I was in regular Spanish because I sucked at it, and being in an honors Spanish class would have been a disaster. The people who run these programs, in my experience, are nowhere near as stupid as some of you seem to think.
An honest question based strictly on curiosity, Voyager.
What was the economic and racial make-up of the schools you attended? Was there any forced or voluntary bussing at your schools? Any white flight at your schools?
My elementary school was about 60-70% white, 30-20% black, and the rest “other” (East Asians and Mexican/Central Americans, mostly. But the school was considered so diverse that it was often called an “international” school.)
Middle school was about 50% white, 45% black, 5% all the other groups.
High school was 60% black, 40% white. Very small numbers of other groups (I don’t know why either).
In all the schools I attended, 95% or more of the black student population was bussed from other areas. I’d say 40-50% of us were middle class or above and the remainder were working class or poor. Except for a few exceptions (kids who I personally knew), whites lived in the neighborhood and almost all of them (90%, I’d wager) were at least middle class. They’d have to be to afford to live in that neighborhood (Buckhead, if anyone’s familiar with Atlanta) Out of that number, I’d say 40% were upper middle-class. My best friend in high school was a white girl who fell in this last group. Her parents were banked enough to pay tuition to our public school system so that both of their kids could attend our high school, since they lived far outside the system (imagine a family in Cobb County sending their kids to an Atlanta Public School!)
I’m curious if the differences in our perspectives stem from differences in the make-up of our respective peer groups.
Please show me some evidence that anyone in this are considers giftedness as “doing well on tests.” From listening to a bunch of psychologists we had talking to us, it is clear that there are some metrics they look at. Very high scores on standardized tests might get a kid interviewed, but it does not in any way guarantee identification.
As I mentioned, AP classes in our district are open to all. At the high school level, honors classes are exactly identical to gifted programs - identified kids get into honors classes automatically (assuming adequate previous performance) and get no other differentiation. Non-identified kids can get in on a space available basis.
At the elementary school level there are no honors classes.
Giftedness, no. “Giftedness”, yes. Many districts and programs define giftedness by meeting a certain percentile cut-off on a certain qualifying or one of several qualifying, tests.
Our district is apparently quite odd. We have no “gifted program” at any level. We have, from Middle School on, Honors or advanced classes that anyone can get into based on last years performance and teacher recommendation. First year High School placement tests also factor into that recommendation (achievement tests). At the High School level if recommended for the class you are free to drop down within the first few weeks of the semester if it is too much. If not recommended you can still get in on parental petitioning but then there is no dropping down; that decision is on your head.
Oddly enough that was the circumstance in the very different district that I was raised in.
I’m talking about my K-12 experience. Maybe your school (or your kids’ school) differs/differed from mine; every district is different, I imagine. Kids at the schools I attended were not subject to interviews or chats with a psychologist prior to being labeled gifted. All they had to do was score high on a the Iowa Basic Skills test. (Test-based criteria seem to apply in the situation described in the OP as well. Interviews were not mentioned.)
In the middle school of my youth, gifted kids were automatically placed in honors academic classes, and “non-gifted” kids were placed there as well based on grades plus a teacher’s recommendation. But honors wasn’t considered a gifted program. There was a separate class called Challenge for the gifted kids in which they did things like work on the school yearbook and quiz each other on trivia for academic team competitions. These gifted kid-only activities stopped in high school.
If you didn’t take honors in middle school, your chances of taking AP classes in HS was low. It may have been “open to all” in theory at my school (don’t know for sure), but in practice, you weren’t going to be prepared for AP if you weren’t already on the honors track and a teacher was probably not going recommend you for it unless you were taking honors. Your chances of being on the honors track were lower if you weren’t labeled as gifted.
If what you’re saying is accurate, that “non-identified” kids could get into honors only on a space available basis–presumably because was there so many gifted kids taking up seats that space for the “non-gifted” had to be rationed out–this underscores my earlier point about an exceptionally high percentage of students being labled exceptional. Do you disagree? If we were talking about truly gifted children, we should really only be talking about a handful of students at most; not an entire classroom or more overtaking the entire grade’s honors section.
