The cult? of "giftedness"

[iggly2]

Discuss..................

blimey, where did that come from?
erm, it isn't discussed in rl at all, here (or indeed anywhere else we've lived, which given that dd1 is in her sixth or seventh school - i lose count, is quite a few places). any mention of being out of the box clever ostracises you completely...

i see no cult. i see a few parents thinly spread looking anxious and trying to hush up their children's achievements lest they cause eye rolling in the playground...

is this from that godawful thread that i'm now ignoring?

happy to discuss, but it isn't anything i've noticed.

How about the cult of mediocrity?

we could have a nice chat about non-competitive sports days maybe?

Do you have to be gifted to join the cult?

More the rise of the term"gifted" that appears to have so many definitions and there are increasing numbers of books on it (though to be fair book numbers are cummulative ).

According to the book "Nurture Shock" 7% of American (USA) public school children are on a gifted program. The G and T was top (meant to be before being disbanded by some schools) 5-10%. Educational psychologists often quote top 2% (so that would be 20% of a competitive selective grammar school). General population often think of gifted as truely tiny percentage. Gifted is a label people appear to wish for their child (even the name appears attractive). Personally I am more comfortable with the phrases "advanced by ..years in..." or "precocious reader/writer...".

When I was at school there were your typical earlier readers, advanced in maths/languages children....no need to label. There are people saying should I get my preschooler tested (despite very low correlation between early testing and later accademic achievement even in reading, writing, maths just at year 3 and changes of 15+ IQ points commonly seen between the ages of 3 and 10 along with discernable neurological changes). Infact some neurologists believe it is children with neurological changes continuing at 10-11 years that are prehaps the more innately intelligent (sorry not sure what word to use other than innate). These tests are expensive and people are obviously earning their living from them (not just there to help the state work out education programs or further research eg in a University department). As part of social difficulties and legal reasons I am sympathetic.

I guess my description of a cult was more refering to the need for some to have their child identified early and labelled (look at the number of posts here)....and this maybe that in the states so much emphasis is placed on testing at kindergarten (or prekindergarten age) that can decide nearly all future schooling options. Nurture shock raises a lot of questions and is an interesting read (but is also on occasion guilty of not displaying all the findings of studies quoted and cherrypicking studies).

Ps, lots of cults are meant to be secretive (Freemasons etc). Sure you can not disclose it in public but it does not mean that you do not indulge in

Nurture shock raises a lot of questions and is an interesting read (but is also on occasion guilty of not displaying all the findings of studies quoted and cherrypicking studies).

Completely understandable as you show your point (or quote anothers) and then display findings to reinforce it. It references quotes and studies really well.

we could have a nice chat about non-competitive sports days maybe?

Completely agree it's ridiculous........

Colleger:Do you have to be gifted to join the cult?

Iggly: No, but you do need to be a cult member to want to have a "gifted" child.......

(tongue in cheek, DS is on holiday ensconced in front of a computer and I want some fun....)

I think it's dangerous to compare the US system/experiences to English.

If you believe Ruf's work & a million other texts, it's very important that "Giftedness" be recognised as early as possible. This is especially true for kids from socially deprived backgrounds, who otherwise underachieve as they age compared to their early potential (it's believed). The logic is that once they get the Gifted tag they are less likely to be overlooked in future (at school).

So culture of early testing started with laudable aims but it has been taken on board too much, maybe, with excess rigidity wrt whether kids can join or drop out of the special Gifted programmes at later stages. And the educated parents make more effort to get their kids identified, so the possible social leveling that early testing could ensure fails to transpire (yet again). Those are main criticisms that Nurtureshock makes, no?

There is certainly an enthusiastic culture on MN of lamblasting the use of the "Gifted" label except in the most amazingly exceptional cases. That's the only "Gifted cult" I ever encounter.

Ruf's work places a lot of emphasis on precocious achievements (but the work Nurture shock mentions looks at the later developing child and neurological developments there and how adults process information differently to children). Nurture shock dose emphasis the problems with effectively cutting later developers out of the education system.

Interesting thread iggly
I would'nt count myself in the 'cult' aspect of giftedness/testing as we had good reason to test,not that it has really been of help from a school point of view as you know, interesting too about The IQ changing by up to 15,dd's tester told us it was generally fixed and only tends to move about 5 points either way,mind you i think i saw a post on the other forum where someone had tested their child several years later and the IQ had gone up significantly,but perhaps this is quite rare?? in the fact it can happen but is not generally so??

Aw. I haven't read nurtureshock. haven't actually read any books about giftedness, though am currently intrigued massively and reading lots about unschooling. Kinda diametrically opposite!

Mmmmmm, going to have to think about the 'dx' aspect... Have been long mired in sn world (way before anyone used the term gifted as a possibility chez out) and so early dx (and intervention) is generally a Good Thing hereabouts. I think most people come to researching or investigating a 'gifted' dx via other means, don't they? (genuine q) as in, this is a problem for x, what could be causing it, type of thing...

Parents, I mean, rather than schools... I do think there are lots of times where a parent can get a bit over-excited by the g&t list thing, which I don't think means much in itself, but I don't inherently have a problem with any measures a school might have in place to identify everystudent's strengths and weaknesses, and ensure they meet their potential. (at an individual level - and I think that's why I'm so interested in home stuff at the mo. Kids are sooooo different, and the curriculum is soooooo random and rule based, that there has to be away to better encourage kids to put some effort in?) so a list is pointless, but identifying kids who need 'more' is good. I think. As long as the 'more' is then enacted.

That may be veering wildly away from cult discussion but it's just stream of consciousness rambling... (as I haven't read the book lol)

Interesting though. Would I being doing dc's a disservice to remove them from school and away from that 'cult'?

...now that they've been indoctrinated and all...

"identifying kids who need 'more' is good."

Yep, but what if you are identifying the wrong ones for a certain style/progran of education and ruling out another group that were maybe more appropriate....

Sorry just looked at my increasing number of typos....programme of education.

For a gist of what is said go to Amazon and search for "Donald Rock" in "Nurture Shock" this should get p100-103. It is about the dangers of early testing without repeats.

sure - that's the wrangle though isn't it. my dilemma entirely. in a nutshell. and whether a 'one size fits all' curriculum can actually be 'the best thing' for any child. whether they are apparently working at a higher, lower, or bang on average level in comparision with thei peer group.

i think every child deserves to meet his or her own potential. how you find out what that is and then meet it is another matter entirely.

i'm not convinced schooling is particularly efficient at anything other than putting children into boxes that they may or not fit into.

i'd rather discuss the cult of 'schooling'. i'm a bit crap at the cult of giftedness.

sorry, missed third post, will go and have a wee investigate.

(your first point also fits neatly into the sn genre btw. 'medical science' is a load of old bollocks and in the early years for sn kids mainly consists of trying lots of different things until they find one that is at least partially effective. but i'd rather that happened than they just shrugged and said 'dunno why he can't talk/ breathe/ swallow. it's a mystery.' and then moved on.

right, amazon.

iggly i think the wrong dc are identified, in dd's school they are the bright eager to please children,not saying that these sort of children cannot be G and T,but imo it should be the children who have lots of potential but are underachieving, but then i would think that would'nt i

It is a total waste of time imo. A decent teacher will differentiate work for different abilities, and will stretch the most able pupils appropriately. I have no idea if my kids are on the list or not, and tbh I don't want to know, because I don't care if they are categorised in that way or not. I suspect they are, because of opportunities they have been given, but I don't have any angst about it.

I don't think there is any good to be had in labelling some children as gifted, because it suggests that other children do NOT have gifts, and imo, every child has some gifts, whether it is academia, art, music, sport, being stunningly photogenic, or being a very lovely person. And to suggest otherwise is to narrow your view of what makes a child.

well, my three hundred page treatise got eaten by mn.

i don't really understand what he's talking about - is he discussing schools specifically for gifted children where assessment takes place using pre-school tests? we don't have those in the uk, anyway, do we?

most of the kids i know who were tested young in the uk were tested using school age tests, even if they weren't 6. so the argument about them being re-tested in g2/3/4 doesn't hold - these kids would already have surpassed the reading comprehension and math problem solving thing anyway (usually by some years), so the context is entirely different. kids who reach the levels usually attained by a 12 yo at 4 or 5 aren't suddenly going to 'dip' below the level expected for an 8yo two years later. they might plateau or see less increase, but they aren't going to backslide dramatically?

i think there is a lot of talk at cross purposes though - i'm not really talking about g&t lists in schools, but kids who have been assessed (like Rock's) but he seems to be referring to a pre-school test which doesn't account for g3 levels of attainment. ime, kids in the uk are routinely tested using 6+ tests even if they aren't 6, so that sort of issue wouldn't arise. they might (dishes out cliche) plateau and so iq would 'drop' in comparison with peer group...

i'm going to google schools for gifted and entry requirements now though, to see if i can work out what he means.

am disappointed the cult is only american.

hmm.

none of the websites tell me what the criteria are. it all looks very 'if your face fits' so unhelpful in the extreme. rather like selection for indies i suspect, maybe the uk does have a parallel after all.

randomly, i came across some really very useless articles in the globe and mail etc asking the same-ish question, and all using carol dweck.

it's a bit weird though. our local middle school are total dweckophiles. i mean, the school literally sends articles home as pep talks. but from what i can see she bangs on about individuality and effort, and helping children to reach their own individual potential. (etc etc) but how is that possible when every single child is given the exact same worksheet, the exact same mind meld curriculum, the exact same non-opportunity to exercise their habits of mind, save for dutifully filling in the right boxes? it looks to me as though carol dweck is being used to uphold the status quo, presumably not what she intended at all...

i'm almost tempted to call a few and ask them.

"don't really understand what he's talking about - is he discussing schools specifically for gifted children where assessment takes place using pre-school tests?" yep alot is about preschool and very early school assesment. It seems to advocate not testing pre year 3 (USA).

In answer to:"kids who reach the levels usually attained by a 12 yo at 4 or 5 aren't suddenly going to 'dip' below the level expected for an 8yo two years later." there is a paragraph or so about how high achievers will still very likely be high achievers later on. Also "to be classified as gifted by a school district indicates a child is bright, but not necessarily extraordinary."....

Lots of emphasis is on how the tests and validation is on current attainment (and comparing them to other tests) but not whether they are predictive .How I read quite lot of this is that there is actually a danger in assuming that the results are for life (esp if taken very early and not reassessed) and that any blip is due to environmental factors and teaching etc ...not just that children vary in development.

From the book"...with all this construction going on (ie neurological development and changes the book mentions), it's not suprising that IQ scores show some variability in the early years. From age 3 to 10, two-thirds of children's IQ scores will improve, or drop, more than 15 points. This is especially true among bright kids-their intelligence is more variable than among slower children. " Notes on References : Songtag et al (1958), McCall et al (1973), Sternberg et al (2001), longitudinal studies looking at children 0.5 yearly from 2.5-6 years then yearly till 12 then at 14,15 and 17. McCall found that IQ of normal middle class children changed an average of 28.5 points between 2.5 and 17 years. In addition more than 1 in 3 displayed performance jumps of more than 30 IQ points within that time span.