The cult? of "giftedness"

[iggly2]

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

Does he look at how much is due to variations in testing? Ie between the 'pre school' tests and the 6+ tests? (as well as individual development)

Development obv plays a part. Dd2 was non verbal at three, whereas ds1 was known as 'golden wonder boy' due to his precocious everything by his second birthday (despite the fact that at 10mos we called him 'Tim nice but dim' . Dd2's iq is much higher than his, but at three the jury was still out as to whether she would be mainstream or special school. Kids vary so much. I used to reading buddy for y2's who struggled to read anything, but saw a few of them suddenly 'click' and then they were different kids.

I thought the early testing controversy had been around for a bit though?

McCall looks v interesting. Might have to dig it out

I thought the early testing controversy had been around for a bit though? ... I def thought that to but maybe that's for a reason!

Assumptions are dangerous (eg something fixed). when I look at even basic things such as eldest statistically having higher (albet slightly) IQ, I just think , surely that is environmental (ie not innate) unless a more intelligent sperm is guarenteed to get there!

Doesn't compare directly different tests more the problems they all can have with predicting accademic achievement (yes I know it can be argued that childen were understimulated bored etc but to be fair they mention problems in schools where in theory they have creamed of the top IYKWIM. eg in New York City "In 2007, a Chancellor's report noted that too few kids qualified at the 90 percentile cut off, so the classes were filled with regular students-42% of the places for gifted kids were filled by children who tested under the 80th percentile"). Sorry, not sure exactly what test NYCity used there (should try and look up, they are into single test pre kindergarten) . Interesting they note a number of authors/owners of the tests calling for repeated and later testing esp Dr Lohman CogAT co-author.

"accademic achievement" they're refering to simple maths/reading levels even just 2/3 years later.

It seems to advocate not testing pre year 3

I think you mean 3rd grade, which is more like yr4 in English schools. Age 9, anyway (except for those who have already skipped grades or been held back).

I have heard there is a culture of not believing in successful differentiation in many US schools, btw, and that teachers are not taught to do it very well.

In answer to your original question (re: "cult" of "giftedness") I think it's mainly people who have no idea of what giftedness really means, that perpetuate the myth that giftedness is something to aspire to.

Personally (if there was a choice!) I would opt for the middle-of-the-road, averagely intelligent, happy child, who has a much better chance of achieving success, happiness, control of their lives, better mental health, and all the other things every parent wishes for their children in the future.

I would not wish giftedness on anyone.

Ditto eyeofnewt

I have not yet met an adult who wished they were more stupid.

"In answer to your original question (re: "cult" of "giftedness") I think it's mainly people who have no idea of what giftedness really means, that perpetuate the myth that giftedness is something to aspire to. "

But that does not necessarily mean you do not think it exists.

I have found it hard to find good statistical papers (ie large studies) on mental health in the "gifted" (I have used quotation marks as definition is different in different contexts and to different people). Lots of anecdotal evidence and people saying there is more research needed (this is NOT the same as me saying I think there is not a link-there may very well be). I am interested- I think it is probably reasonably difficult to study (do you differentiated between those told they were gifted and those not told, certain people maybe in more stressful jobs etc, what about the type of upbringing/schooling, do you look at the chance of them developing a mental helth issue over a set period of time,finding large numbers of gifted, definition of gifted....). I think there may even be a difference in the outcome between genders (Nuture Shock was interested in the effect of praise/confidence issues with girls in particular).

There is also a distinct possibility that someone will be more likely to be told they are gifted if they conform to ideas of what gifted people "are like".

Thinking here of two students I knew back at university. One was your archetypal socially-awkward, different-from-the-others, appearing-older-than-his-age young man. The other was a fluffy, pretty, party-going, sociable young girl.

We all thought that he was seriously gifted and the only reason he was struggling with some aspect of his studies was that he was just too bright for the people around him. He thought so himself. He spoke to the rest of us in a very patronising manner. Clearly, he had been a bright child at school and put this together with his social difficulties to come to the conclusion that he was a misunderstood genius.

It was only when he started attending pg seminars that it became clear that his giftedness was not enough for what was required. It was very hard for him to see himself out-performed by somebody he considered a lightweight, in fact, a whole seminar of lightweights.

Not sure what this story reveals, except I don't think anyone had ever told the girl that she was a genius. And she was actually pretty good.

But I don't think she suffered. He did.

That's probably because being described as gifted was his consolation prize for being different and awkward. I'm sure he would have suffered even more if he wasn't even academically clever, just awkward and different.

Well, the problem with his consolation prize was that it didn't last: he failed his degree. It was a hard fall for him because he had clung to his consolation prize for so long and based his self-esteem on something that demonstrably wasn't true. He wasn't a pleasant person, but I did feel sorry for him.

Do you think the missing ingredient here could be "creativity". My most successful friend from school got one CSE in art and would never have been identified as G&T. Children who are "creative" may be seen as problematic in the classroom as they may be non-conformist and challenging. There are many successful adults who did not do well academically at school (think dyslexia). Being an original, creative writer is not the same as getting a high SATS grade in a writing test. Agatha Christie's spelling was terrible. Only yesterday I was reading about Louis Pasteur who was "never considered more than a slightly above average student". Maybe these people acquire drive and ambition through their "failings" and lack of recognition at school.

Copied from the web:

"The problem is people equate IQ with creativity, and there is not a correlation. Average people can be creative, high IQ people not creative, and all other combinations."

Teachers should be cautious in assuming that precocious children are necessarily creatively gifted, especially at the expense of failing to encourage the creative child who may not stand out as a young scholar. Creative children are often not included in programs for the gifted and talented because the measures used for identification don't reflect creativity.

Joseph Renzulli's (1978) three-ring definition of gifted behavior:

Gifted behavior consists of behaviors that reflect an interaction among three basic clusters of human traits? above average ability, high levels of task commitment, and high levels of creativity.

I would definitely agree that if you take the whole UK population, parents trying to promote their children or identify their potential and work in co-operation with the school to try and maximise is are generally not onto a winner as they are immediately branded pushy.

Schools are overcrowded, under-resrourced and driven by targets which are directly in opposition to the above. A child who has amazing potential only has the opportunity to excel and develop that talent or gift if the parents promote it and encourage it at home.

Generally in the UK it is uncool to boast about success. It is really a cultural thing that extends to all areas. I was surprised for example that people do not discuss openly their salaries, this is common practice where I come from and people do openly talk about how much they earn, and everything to do with money. It is also cool if a child or an adult achieves great things and people like being associated with that and aspiring to it - generally speaking.

I couldn't believe it when I heard that in the UK children who take part in things like the Olympics get bullied mercilessly at school (I know 2, personally) and have had to be either homeschooled or put in private education. Where I come from they would be held as heroes and children would all want to be friends with them and aspire to be like them.

I think this is an issue that needs addressing, tbh.

I don't think it's uncool to boast about success in this country, it's only uncool to boast about particular kinds of success, and those who are looked up to are often not very desirable role models.

I am so tired of this discussion. I found mumsnet by looking up gifted and talented forums. Why the hell does this country hate intelligence so much? I have a 5-year-old that is hiding his intelligence from his teacher. He pretends to do single digit addition with blocks and fingers when he can do three digit addition in his head. He can't hide the fact that he reads very well but for some reason he is hiding his maths skills from his teacher, or his peers. I am not sure because he just laughs when I ask him about it. I have to keep the 5-year-old out of the room when the 8-year-old does his homework because the 5-year-old does it faster. THESE ARE PARENTING CHALLENGES. I WOULD LIKE TO TALK TO PARENTS WHO FACE SIMILAR CHALLENGES. THE BLOODY GIFTED AND TALENTED FORUM SHOULD BE A SAFE-ISH PLACE FOR ME TO DO THIS.

It isn't. My 5-year-old is not a genius, and if I post about him here someone will chime in that he isn't all that smart and he will grow out of it. Someone else will suggest he is autistic. Then someone will chime in and tell me to get over myself and stop the steath boast.

I just want to talk to other parents who face similar challenges, I really can't talk to RL friends about this. The very smart 5-year-old is also terrified to cross the road. It isn't all lovely and easy and it isn't about me. It is about being the best, and most thoughtful mother I can be to my children. It isn't at all about trying to boast or make other people feel badly.

It is hardly the case that parents of children who have above-average intelligence are shouting from the rooftops. We are very quietly posting in correct forum. Well, I mostly stopped posting here because it just made me sad.

Well I really rather like this forum . It's good to discuss things and somethimes it does feel that some people are so desperate to have a label (that is hardly definitively defined). I do think it is worth debate about a label that may potentially harm a child. Also I like other things that have been brought in like the importance of creativity (by Niceweather) and the dangers of stereotyping (Cory) etc.

Re: the stereotyping. I also post on a dyslexia forum and there is a consensus there that the early struggles at school, the lack of recognition, the need to work hard to overcome difficulties can in fact be the ingredients that give you the will and ability to succeed. On the other hand, a friend at school has a daughter who in Yr 10 is predicted top GCSE grades and as a consequence, is now resting on her laurels.

Is it a good idea to give out CATS results and to predict GCSE results like this? The aforementioned mother does not think so. A child predicted Cs and Ds has everything to work for.

This is not meant to be negative against G&T children.

Having a younger child who makes the older child feel bad by being nosey about his homework and doing it better than him is a NORMAL parenting experience, not an odd one. Plenty of people could tell you about that experience if you open it up to a wider audience, rather than assuming you will only get helpful advice from parents who think they have gifted and talented children. Having a child who pretends he can't do maths when he can is NOTHING to do with that child's intelligence and everything to do with his personality. It is not the case that every bright child feels the need to underperform.

It doesn't matter where you post your questions, you will get some people who are helpful, some who don't understand you or your point, or who disagree as to what the actual source of the problem is, and some people who start talking about something unrelated to your original question, because a small aspect of what you said relates to what they want to talk about. That's life - different people see things from different perspectives and that's why you open your questions out to others, to get different perspectives, not to get bland reinforcement of your own beliefs. If you want bland reinforcement then buy a book that fits with your beliefs and read that.

I'd agree that having a younger child outperform an older at least in some area is a fairly normal experience even when you are not talking actual giftedness. It calls for tactful handling- but then parenting does. Most larger families will have a younger child who is good at something, whether sports, music or academic work. This is one of the benefits of a large family: you learn to handle other people's cleverness.

This is not to deny that there are children who are so gifted they are just off the scale and this certainly creates problems of its own in family dynamics.

Also I agree that it is very much a personality question whether you hide what you can do or not. It is not something that is directly proportionate to your level of giftedness.

My ds is desperately into hiding what he can do. But there is no sign that he is gifted; in fact, I'd say he is of fairly average ability- if only he would show what he knows. But he is so frightened of finding out that he can't do well even if he tries that he never does try. In his case, this is an atittude brought on by finding that his friends were more gifted than him, and that things that are quite difficult for him are easy for other people.

Dd otoh, who is gifted, doesn't seem to worry about what people will think about it: she seems more easily convinced that people will like her because of other, totally unrelated things, and that giftedness just isn't an important part of the equation. To her, likeability is about taking an interest in other people, and her ability to analyse poetry or read adult books on Renaissance history doesn't come into that. She can do both.

I was possibly gifted (I certainly had no problems in outperforming my 4 years older brother) and I was bullied for it, but it only made me more determined to push on and achieve as much as I could because my bullies were wrong. Likeability wasn't something I was interested in.

So totally different reactions.

In the country I grew in and the time I did, gifted was really really gifted, meaning a genius. Turing, Einstein, Mozart. The rest, we were dumb, clever, average, hard working, lazy...
In the UK, now, my DS has been labelled as gifted. He is not a genius, believe me. He's just an intelligent boy.
IQ can increase hugely with age and also preparation. People tutoring their DC for VR and NVR reasoning tests report huge improvements after months. It's the same tests basically. The whole thing is a joke: the money industry around it, the parental obsession and the cult.