Gifted and Talented program with little to no budget?

[dogmom]

No, it just acknowledges that there are both genetic and environmental factors, and that the distribution of gifted students by individual school or district may not match the overall population of the entire country due to those factors.

I guess I always envisioned truly “gifted” people to be more innate biology than nurture. Those people that just think differently, often out of step of those around them. So I guess for me a true measure of gifted is not much variation between school districts. If there is a big difference you are measuring privilege/social norms/resources. We probably have a different definition of gifted.

[PZMommy]

I guess I always envisioned truly “gifted” people to be more innate biology than nurture. Those people that just think differently, often out of step of those around them. So I guess for me a true measure of gifted is not much variation between school districts. If there is a big difference you are measuring privilege/social norms/resources. We probably have a different definition of gifted.

I think of your definition of being gifted. I have two boys. I've raised them the same way, they have had the same educational experiences, both DH and I are teachers with advanced degrees, etc. My older DS has been identified as highly gifted. He stands out in his class with the way he thinks and how he solves problems. He is very difficult to parent due to the way he sees things, but the teachers love him and say he is a delight to have in class. My younger DS is not at all like him. He does well in school, but he does not think like older DS does. I do not believe he is gifted, and didn't even have him referred for testing.

[o_mom]

I guess I always envisioned truly “gifted” people to be more innate biology than nurture. Those people that just think differently, often out of step of those around them. So I guess for me a true measure of gifted is not much variation between school districts. If there is a big difference you are measuring privilege/social norms/resources. We probably have a different definition of gifted.

I don't think our definitions of what constitutes gifted are that different, but we disagree on if the biological component has inheritance involved (and thus not randomly distributed) or it is just random mutation. I think we may also disagree on the idea that people with IQ in the gifted range are more likely to be academically successful and therefore end up in higher SES areas. I find it difficult to believe that there is not a higher proportion of gifted people among those with PhDs, for example.

That's not to say that many measures of IQ aren't biased in some ways, but I don't think that explains all of the differences.

[bisous]

I’m always curious about what others consider gifted. My whole family, all 5 kids were at one point in a gifted program. Only one of my sisters had an IQ considered “genius” level. We’re all in the top 99th percentile but NONE of us were prodigies. That’s still a lot of people in a large high school that could be considered “gifted” and even more so in higher SES area because of both nature AND nurture I’m sure.

Our G&T program in elementary school was treated like an enrichment program and was a lot of fun. In high school we all took Honors courses. Pretty much like most people here on the BBB I’m sure.

I guess I don’t have a problem with a program for the kids who are the top 1 percentile. I think the true prodigies are really so rare that there can’t really be a “program” to accommodate them. One of my friends has a child who was writing books on a computer at age 2. What program can possibly help him, lol! But our “gifted” program in 1st grade had us put a cat skeleton back together and create blueprints for a park using a budget. That was fun and enriching whatever it should be called,

[nfceagles]

I’m always curious about what others consider gifted. My whole family, all 5 kids were at one point in a gifted program. Only one of my sisters had an IQ considered “genius” level. We’re all in the top 99th percentile but NONE of us were prodigies. That’s still a lot of people in a large high school that could be considered “gifted” and even more so in higher SES area because of both nature AND nurture I’m sure.

Our G&T program in elementary school was treated like an enrichment program and was a lot of fun. In high school we all took Honors courses. Pretty much like most people here on the BBB I’m sure.

I guess I don’t have a problem with a program for the kids who are the top 1 percentile. I think the true prodigies are really so rare that there can’t really be a “program” to accommodate them. One of my friends has a child who was writing books on a computer at age 2. What program can possibly help him, lol! But our “gifted” program in 1st grade had us put a cat skeleton back together and create blueprints for a park using a budget. That was fun and enriching whatever it should be called,

I think the debate isn’t as much about what percentage defines gifted, any number could be used by any school with the proper resources. I mean is there any harm in providing enriching activities to the top 50% instead of 1% or 20%? The question is really about how we identify these kids and are those methods biased toward white, upper middle class kids?

Our school doesn’t have a program. State law requires they identify kids but doesn’t require they provide services. I really don’t care if there’s a special program but as the parent of kids who have been labeled Gifted and who find school quite easy, I would like to see a better method of providing individualized curriculum, not just to the top 10%, but really all the kids. They say they try but teachers don’t have the resources and what resources that do exist are prioritized for the kids falling behind. When I was a kid we split into 3 groups for main subjects in elementary school and teachers were able to focus on teaching the one group assigned to them. That seems to be considered inappropriate these days.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[legaleagle]

I think a lot of the issue between different school districts is properly *identifying* gifted children, however you measure that, particularly if you're talking about 2E kids. Things like PTSD (which is very common in some populations) will mask innate giftedness because of all the associated behavior issues.