Discussion of NurtureShock, Chapter 5 "The Search For Intelligent Life in Kindergarten"

We're talking about NurtureShock by Po Bronson and Ashley Merryman all summer. One chapter every Friday. Jump in whenever you'd like. The first week we talked about Chapter 1 about praise. The second week we talked about Chapter 2 about sleep. The third week we talked about talking about race with your kids. Last week we talked about why kids lie and how we're inadvertently promoting that. This week we're talking about intelligence testing for preschoolers for school placement purposes.

This week's chapter is called "The Search For Intelligent Life in Kindergarten." Here's my full disclosure: I have a son in the "Gifted and Talented" program at NYC Public Schools and one going into the regular Kindergarten in NYC Public Schools in the fall, so I'm on both sides of this debate.

Bronson and Merryman looked at test scores of kids who were tested the year before Kindergarten (most were 4) to be admitted to "gifted" programs or special private schools. Then they looked at achievement levels of those kids vs. kids in the "regular" classes a few years later. What they found was that there wasn't much correlation to how kids scored when they were little and how they did later on.

The basic takeaways are:

• Intelligence is fluid and shifting when kids are little, and doesn't start to "settle" until closer to 3rd grade.
• Test scores for 4-year-olds correlate really highly to family background. The kids who are pepped for the tests, even if it's just by being paid a lot of attention to, are the ones who score highest. (duh.)
• The kids who turn out to be the smartest later often do not show that in testable ways until they're older, and may be quite uneven. Traditional testing rates a kid who scoes high in one area and low in another as low, but Bronson and Merryman found out that that very unevenness is often a sign that a kid's going to turn out to be really smart.
• All (yes all) of the creators of the intelligence tests used to place kids in "gifted" programs recommend that they not be used for school placement until 2nd or 3rd grade, as intelligence isn't beginning to settle until then.
• By testing so early, a lot of the kids who should be in "gifted" classes in 4th grade are missed. And lots of the kids who get in in Kindergarten really can't keep up and should be in classes that go at a better pace for them. The early testing is hurting a huge group of kids by missing the mark seriously.
• If you like numbers, read this chapter because it has a ton of numbers to prove the point right above this.

I can't say I'm surprised by all of this. I also disagree with "gifted" classes in general, and wish class size could be small enough and the school day planned differently so teachers could differentiate fluidly and it wouldn't be an issue. But that's on the Pigs Fly list, I suppose.

NYC Public Schools just announced that they're going to start the "Gifted" testing of kids at age 3. That's really not that smart, in the face of all this research. Perhaps the people running the NYC DOE G&T program were tested into the administration too early.

Thoughts? Experiences?

Comments

[Jamie]

I have to say, I thought this chapter was sloppy. IQ tests and tests of school performance are not looking at quite the same things. I'm not surprised by the correlations they cited between the two.

That thing on pp 107-108 about EQ and temperament? "Higher cognitive ability increases emotional functioning"? I'm not buying it. Smarter, more verbal kids are more likely to give the right answers to questions about how they might feel in a hypothetical situation. I just don't think the authors can take that where they're going with it. And the reason introverts are the best students in eighth grade has more to do with the expectations of our schools than with a hidden relationship between temperament and cognition.

I agree that early IQ results may not be very robust, and I certainly agree that plenty of kids are late bloomers. This chapter left me very skeptical, though.

[Cathy]

I think that makes a lot of sense.

For example: my husband finally made it into the gifted program in high school (he is really smart). His mother had a fourth grade education, and English is his second language. I don't think he would have tested well in kindergarten or at age 3.

Also, from what I understand, testing for ADHD might not be feasible until 2nd grade or so - until kids grow out of a certain amount of wiggliness, I believe. This seems like it would be related, but I don't have anything to cite.

[SarcastiCarrie]

I'm still waiting for Nurture Shock at the library, but I just read the book "Kindergarten Wars" and found out a lot about the process of getting into selective kindergartens. According to that book, it was basically only in NYC where true IQ-type tests were used as a factor. Other selective schools in other areas used tests, but not of the intelligence type. They checked for ability to pay attention, but balanced classes boy/girl so that fidgety boys were not at a disadvantage. They check for verbal and spatial abilities in a general way. Very interesting stuff.

Back in the dark ages, when I was a kid, the G&T program started in 3rd grade and you were recommended for the program by your 2nd grade teacher. I'm pretty sure test scores were used/checked as part of the entry process. It was highly selective. We had about 90 kids per grade and about two were taken per grade, so that would be in the top percentiles, I would guess.

Now my local elementary school pulls out for gifted classes in 2nd grade and they use two or three of the following to decide whether to accept: test scores, teacher rec, membership in Chess or Lego clubs, precociousness, advanced sense of humor, musical ability, and a couple of other subjective criteria.

[hydrogeek]

The gifted program in my school started in 3rd grade, so that seems to make sense, but the main reason I'm commenting is because this post made me snort twice. I'm taking up "The Pigs Fly List" as part of my vernacular, and line about people being tested into school administration too early just hit my funny bone. Thanks for the laugh!

I also wanted to say that I know the school I attended dropped the gifted and talented program not long after I graduated high school (15 years ago!), because it was unfair for kids to be pulled out of class because they were smart, and it made the other kids feel bad. All the teachers had to go to some kind of one day training to learn how to challenge the smart kids in the regular class, which led, in some cases, to the smart kids getting extra homework. This seems like a good way to teach kids to play dumb to me, and all sounded like a line of BS from those administrators that tested in to their jobs too early who were trying to justify getting rid of the expense of a program so they could spend more money on sports. (I live in Texas.) I guess what I'm saying is a G&T program can be a great thing...or it can be horrible, like anything else. My experience with it was that teachers and test scores and several other things had a say in who got in, which seemed to have led to a more rounded G&T class. Until they canceled it, anyway.

[flea]

My daughter (now 6, turning 7 in late August and starting 2nd grade Aug. 9) was tested for gifted in K, mid-way through the year, when she was 5y4m. The testing, mandated by the state (Georgia), is group testing using standardized tests. In K, the gifted teacher reads the questions out loud, because many of the kids can't actually read yet, and needless to age simple age-based differences at age 5 can be huge - 6 months is a lot of development!. One of the ways to get into gifted is by meeting the standard in creativity. We saw the standardized test they gave for creativity (my daughter, whose strengths are oral-verbal and small-motor, and loves making art, tested in the 30somethingth %ile for creativity). Marvel at that irony, a standardized test for creativity!

My daughter did not test "gifted," and we didn't push to have her re-tested in 1st grade, through we may do so this year. I honestly don't think my daughter IS gifted, in the sense of having unusual abilities that can't be catered to in a normal classroom. I think she's smart and the child of smart people (father has a PhD and mother went ABD), but doesn't "learn differently" the way some gifted kids do. The reason this matters, though, and I will keep pushing for gifted testing, is because I have discovered her school actually tracks the "gifted" kids, putting them all in one classroom (out of 4 for each grade; I should note that our school is 75% non-white and 80+% free/reduced lunch - and yes, the "gifted" kids are overwhelmingly white and upper middle class). They get the "best" teacher in each grade, and they get enrichment activities in the classroom (as opposed to pull-outs). My daughter was in the "gifted" class last year, because I wrote and asked for that teacher based on the advice of her K teacher, although I didn't figure out the 'gifted tracking' thing until the end of the year. I am not very happy with the idea of tracking first graders, and I am not happy with the way gifted is treated in my state/district, but for my kid's benefit, I feel like I have to try to get her into the system. Ugh.

[Raia]

I don't like tracking, and especially don't like early tracking. There's got to be a better solution.

When I was coming up, we had the same system as Carrie. The 2nd grade teacher nominates certain kids to be tested. I got in, but I always wondered how I could attend a school that was about 1/3 african american, yet there was only one other African American in the GT program.

I don't know if they still do it this way, but I think if you are going to test anybody, then test everybody. Or, come up with some objective measure to decide who should be tested, gpa for example.

[hush]

@Moxie - If you truly "disagree with 'gifted' classes in general," then why not pull your older son out of the program and insist he be schooled the standard way just like his brother will be? What's your thought process there?

I've heard people refer to the whole 'one early test dictating a child's placement pretty much forever' phenomenon as "Tracking." My opinion is still forming about this. On the one hand, I used to be a kid who tested extremely well, and who was bored in the regular classroom. (And I can assure you, intelligence ebbs and flows over time, because I'm an average adult in every way.) I needed something more rigorous than the basic curriculum offered. The gifted and talented program was the only option at the time, and it helped meet my need for more of an educational challenge. To this day I am still friends with kids from the program, which brings me to a different train of thought-- on the other hand, once I got "tracked" into the highest level classes and earned A's in them, I was in the program for the next decade of my life. One unforeseen effect of this was a form of de facto segregation. Even though I went to predominantly black schools, the highest-level classes were always full of white students from economically-advantaged families, plus one black male student who was teased mercilessly for it by his peers, and that lasted for our entire school career. I don't think it was the most progressive, healthy situation. Anyway, this chapter was good food for thought for me.

[Cloud]

I finally got the book! I am finding it frustrating. I always have more questions at the end of the chapter than the chapter answered. In this case, I wondered if anyone has done research to correlate participation in gifted programs with future success? I want a careful study, where they try to control for all the confounding variables, like family income, parental support, etc.

I sort of suspect that the gifted programs aren't going to turn out to be that important, but I could be wrong. The only data guiding that suspicion is the study described in Freakonomics, where the kids whose parents tried to get them into a special charter school program did better on average than the general population- even if they didn't make it into the program. The conclusion was that parental involvement is a very important factor.

Anyway- like @SarcastiCarrie, when I went through, the gifted program started later, in 4th grad in my case. And it was an enrichment thing. We were pulled out to a special class one day a week, not put in an entirely different school or anything. I liked the class, and learned things. But was it key to my future success? Who knows.

I prefer the enrichment approach. I think kids need to learn how to relate with peers of all different ability levels, and that pulling the "smartest" out to a different class or school does a bit of a disservice to all the kids. The top kids don't get the chance to learn how to relate with kids who aren't as quick to get things, and the borderline kids don't get the motivating factor of having the top kids around. But I am not an expert in educational theory, so perhaps my ideas are just hogwash.

Finally, I am trying really hard to remember that my goal is to raise a happy person, who will be a productive member of society- not necessarily to raise an academic genius. But my oldest isn't school age yet, and who knows what I'll think when I actually hit the system?

[electriclady]

As someone whose child will be entering NYC kindergarten in 2012, as the first class who will be affected by those new testing rules, I have been thinking about this a LOT. We have one year before we start the game.

Philosophically, I have big problems with "gifted" programs as early as kindergarten. I think that all children should have enriched classroom experiences, regardless of ability level, and that children that young probably benefit from mixing with different ability levels, just like in a Montessori classroom. Not to mention the whole testing-is-flawed argument that Bronson and Merryman bring up (see also this article: http://nymag.com/news/features/63427/ )

Yet. We will almost certainly have our daughter tested. We live in an area with very uneven schools, and I want to at least have some options. As @flea says, I don't necessarily think she's "gifted" so much as a smart kid who's had the advantage of smart parents who work very hard at providing a good learning environment. So if she doesn't get into a special gifted school (requirements: testing at 97th percentile or above and surviving very competitive lottery) then we will probably try to send her to the regular program in one of the better neighborhood schools rather than our local gifted program (requirement: testing at 90th percentile or above) which is in a not-so-great school.

Ah, the joys of the NYC public school system. Somebody hold me.

(BTW, I read the proposed "testing at 3" as children will be tested in the fall of their pre-K year instead of the spring, so that some of the very youngest kids will be just about to turn 4. Obviously 3-4 months still makes a big difference for a 3-4 year old, but testing 3.11 year olds is not QUITE as horrible as saying they're going to test 3.2 year olds, which I don't think anyone is.)

[the milliner]

I was very curious to see what this chapter would reveal as I was tested for the gifted program in grade school and our daycare educators keep telling us how intelligent DS (2-yo) is. As much as you want to believe your kid is uber-intelligent, we're taking it with a grain of salt, and trying to ask specifics (why is he intelligent? can you give us examples?) all while keeping in mind that he may in actual fact turn out to be gifted.

Understanding more about the development of the brain as revealed in the chapter really helped put this in perspective for me. I can totally see how truly gifted kids are left out of the mix if they don't test well early or if they don't appear like the stereotypical 'smart person' on the surface. And likewise how some kids (due to background as suggested) slip through, stay in gifted programs, when in actual fact they would probably get more out of regular programs. As Moxie said, not having gifted classes but managing this in the classroom could remove some of this issue. (Though I fully realise that in 2010 this probably is a when pigs fly dream). It would be less of a stigma, I think, if a kid's lesson plan just changed instead of changing their class or school.

When I was in grade school (70's/early 80's) we were tested in grade 6 (age 12) to see if you would go to the gifted junior high. I think there was 6 of us that took the test the year I did it. If you were thought to be gifted before that age, your teacher just gave you extra/different projects. In grade 7, core subjects were divided into regular and enriched lesson plans (but all in the same class). Our classes were big (25-30 students) but somehow they managed to accomodate kids on either end of the spectrum.

I spoke with my Mum recently about my being tested and she told me that she and my father had decided (before I took the test) that they wanted me to stay in regular public school, regardless of the result. She had discussed it with a teacher friend who strongly believed that kids of all different learning abilities should learn together in the same class. In the end, I didn't get a high enough score, so it was irrelevant. But I do remember being disappointed that I wasn't smart enough to go to the other school. It would have been interesting to see how my parents handled it if I did get in, and if I wanted to go.

BUT, the interesting thing is the issue came back later in my adult life (around 30). Having been labeled smart, but not gifted, in grade school had an effect, I think, on how I thought about my own abilities and how I treated my own giftedness. Which, in the end, was not revealed through traditional testing.

I think in some ways, I internalized others opinions of me (smart, but not 'genius', too sensitive, too intense, too driven - all things I think are linked to giftedness) even if I rejected those opinions on the surface. To a certain degree I think I held back in my ability (or didn't trust my ability) because I didn't learn how to acknowledge and manage how I was different from other kids, as well as not really having an outlet to exercise or push or expose my giftedness, around and with people who 'got it'. It may have happened in a gifted program.

And so, 20 years later, I found myself in situations (mostly work related, but I can see links in my personal life as well) where I didn't trust my abilities, I believed some toxic people around me that there was something wrong with me in how I worked, and I was frustrated when other people couldn't see what I was seeing as quickly as I was seeing it.

Anyhow, my points above are not to say 'poor me', it's more my way of saying that I agree it's dangerous to label at such a young age, and that I think traditional testing is not enough.

Unlike @Jamie, I do believe in EQ. Though I agree that it was very clumsily discussed in the book. High IQ is one kind of giftedness, but I do believe there are other factors at play in determining giftedness and providing appropriate schooling for those who are considered gifted. I've recommended it before, but for a guide to the other traits that are considered a sign of being gifted, read this book. It's geared for gifted adults, but the traits are the same (advanced sense of humor as @SarcastiCarrie mentions is one of them).

http://www.amazon.com/Gifted-Adult-Revolutionary-Liberating-Everyday/dp/0345434927/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1278686811&sr=8-1

Overall, I think the book (NurtureShock) just skimmed the surface on the issue. I recently did some research on the web for gifted programs in our area, and sadly, the province where I live now is not very supportive of gifted kids and their education (well, at least in the public schools). This gives me concern for going forward, and I'm thinking that if DS does show signs of being gifted I'll have to supplement at home.

[Charisse]

Oh man, I have such a tough time with this one, because to even talk about why I care I have to expose myself as a freak. So I agree philosophically with all of this, especially when gifted programs are constituted for the top 25% or something in an area or two. Which is what they need to get a real constituency.

But there are a couple of problems, one with the longtime association of being gifted with being a genius (a rather separate quality that has a lot to do with inspiration, luck, and timing as well) and two with the idea that age should be the standard way we break out children into classes in school. I'm very excited to see the experiment Kansas City is doing, getting rid of grade levels: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38076665/ns/38079854 That will make things a lot like the fantastic gifted-only private school I attended once my local public school essentially threw up their hands and said they couldn't deal with me.

Am I a genius? Hell no, not yet. I'd love to be. But I was an extremely academically precocious kid (I was in the 5-6th grade gifted science program in 2nd grade, read stuff like the Hobbit and loved it before I started K at 4 1/2, blah blah blah - this feels braggy but it's nothing I *achieved* you know, you know?) and I can tell you from that perspective that a regular classroom didn't work for me - often because I was just out and out interested in different stuff, even if I was technically at the same social development level. So being in a school that had other freaks of the same age was huge because I actually had somebody to talk to.

Anyway, I think having more flexibility in classroom ages so that 6-year-olds who are interested in physics can talk to 10-year-olds who are interested at the same level would be better for lots of people.

More later if I can - I have a busy day!

[Lindz]

Here's my early testing anecdote: We weree tested in 1st grade. I wasn't supposed to be tested, but there was an extra test, so my teacher had me take it. When I got home and was telling my Mom about the test, she got really angry with the teacher for getting my hopes up and testing me without telling my parents first. When she called in to talk to the teacher about it, the teacher had the results but couldn't tell her yet. Apparently, it was a lot of "Don't worry, I don't think we got her hopes up needlessly". One of the reasons I hadn't been scheduled for testing was because I was not in the highest reading group. However, once the teacher had the results and knew I could handle it, I was in the highest reading group in a few weeks.

Five years later, we moved to a different state. In that school system, I qualified for G&T math, but not English for the first year. The teacher was good and enthusiastic, but I didn't learn as much as I would have in the G&T English (which I joined the next year). (According to my mom, I was bored, but I don't remember it that way)

[the milliner]

Just one more additional note. After reading more comments above, I realise that for me the idea of a gifted program (weather inside the classroom or in a special class) is essential primarily for happiness, integrity, fulfillment and self esteem reasons, with of course, increased performance and success as a nice byproduct. For me the success is not the primary goal. Yes, I want my kid to be successful. But more importantly, I'd rather them be secure in who they are and fulfilled by being able to express that to the nth degree at least part of the time.

I want my kid to have their school day/atmosphere be a place where they are truly challenged, encouraged to give all their effort, feel safe to show all of their abilities without fear of their peers thinking they're weird etc. I think the first two points can be achieved in a multi-ability classroom. But the last point? Not so much.

And as @cloud said:
The top kids [need] the chance to learn how to relate with kids who aren't as quick to get things, and the borderline kids [need] the motivating factor of having the top kids around.

@Cloud: This point in specific is a core subject dealt with in the book I mention above, so no, not all hogwash. The fact is, we all need to live in this world together. As much as gifted people shouldn't be condemned for being quick to get things, 'regular' people shouldn't be condemned for working and learning in their own way. It's a question of learning how to communicate together and to respect differences.

Probably the ideal would be integrated classes with a portion of separate classes for gifted studies. Perhaps.

[Cloud]

Oh, I so need to write my own post on this topic, because I've apparently got a lot to say. And it has got me thinking about my educational experience, and what I want for my daughters.

There are two educational experiences that I look back on as being very influential on my later life. One was in my regular 6th grade class. I rushed through a math assignment so that I could read my book, and I got it completely wrong. The teacher wouldn't let me redo it, and I lost my "top of the class" ranking (I had a bit of a competition on that with my best friend at the time). That taught me that even boring work needs to be done properly, and that is something I swear has served me very well in my career.

The second was in my first year at college. I went to a very challenging college, and was struggling a bit in my chemistry class in my first year. The kids from the really good high schools were doing great, and I was doing so-so. Then, before our final "midterm", I buckled down and really studied. And I got the highest grade on that test. I learned how to study to get results, and that served me well in the later classes (I went on to be a chemistry major, and eventually get a PhD in a related field). I also learned the importance of working hard, and that continues to be key to me even now.

I'm not sure what these things say about gifted programs. I undoubtedly benefited greatly from some of the things in my elementary school gifted class. But the number one influential experience from grade school wasn't in that class, and it wasn't even a successful experience!

But later, the importance of being challenged and rising to that challenge became important. I think the college experience gave me a lot of self-confidence and trust in my ability to learn things, even if they don't come as easily to me as someone else. That is a lesson I want to teach my kids- ideally before they almost drop out of their fancy pants college because all of the other kids are "smarter" than them!

[Emily]

I am incredibly dismayed to learn NYC is changing the test date for the G and T test. My son has a November birthday, putting him in the 3.10 or 3.11 camp. Yes, not 3.2 but still, not exactly nearly-five.

I found this chapter to be a.) not a shock and b.) very depressing. I have no idea what to do about school for my kids.

I grew up going to our "bad," "dangerous" neighborhood school in a large and fading industrial city. There was no "gifted" program. My urban hippie parents felt it was their responsibility to send their kids there, a decision I largely respect. I'm a functioning adult with two higher degrees so I obviously got what I needed out of my school experience although frankly I'm not sure it was the best education. Our classes were crowded, the teachers were overworked, there were lots of discipline and safety issues, etc.

I can't figure out how to feel about gifted and talented programs. I have lots of vague "in a perfect world" objections to them, but how this will play out for my own children is still up for debate. My husband and I vacillate wildly between wanting to opt in (and red-shirting our son to optimize his chances on the test) and opt out (either skip the test and send him to the and sort-of-okay neighborhood school or opting out in a different direction - montessori/waldorf/homeschooling).

I would love to see a larger discussion on this forum about what school is actually *for*. Book learning? Social learning? How do people weigh the many issues to make decisions for their children?

[jojoc]

I just want to make a comment that I don't like the whole labeling of gifted. I grew up in a G&T program and was always pulled out of regular class, being separated from other kids. I grew up feeling "smart" and "entitled". I wonder how the other kids felt?

We are specifically enrolling our child in a school system that does not have G&T programs. (We are in AZ) The curriculum is just a bit more "advanced" and all children are expected to rise to the challenge. If some kids need help, help is available.

[Schwa de Vivre]

I haven't read the chapter yet, but I can tell you that as a kid, school bored me. I graduated as valedictorian, and when I got to college I wished I had more options in terms of gifted and talented -- so many people I went to school with just had the opportunity to learn more than I did. Had my personality been different, I might have dropped out of high school as soon as possible, just out of sheer boredom. I mean, I slept through school, and missed a huge chunk of senior year due to illness, and still graduated with the highest GPA. It's far from the only problem with education, but I think doing something to keep GT students interested, engaged, and learning is crucial.

It's interesting to note that it was around fourth or fifth grade that I started getting truly bored. By sixth grade, I wanted to hang myself. In seventh grade, junior high started, and things started getting better for me as classes split according to academic ability/grades. At least now, in my home town, they start the split early, in sixth grade I think. But now it's middle school, and I'm not sure how it's arranged. It's not quite like junior high.

I'm looking forward to reading the chapter.

[SarcastiCarrie]

@ Emily asks: "what school is actually *for*"?

That is an excellent question. I know until HS, I rarely learned anything academic at school. I had an older sister 4 grade levels above me, who came home and taught me all she had learned (including algebra, French, and CURSIVE, which was a huge deal). I learned a lot of social aspects on the tire swings and merry-go-round. Being pulled out to the G&T class once a week, I also learned that I wasn't the smartest kid as there was Philip who could blow me out of the water with his abilities even though he was a year or two younger. I learned to read sheet music. I learned The Pledge of Allegiance. I learned the rules of baseball and basketball in gym class (and was tested on them...certainly something I never would have done on my own as I have zero interest).
I (still to this day) have no study skills. It came easily through HS. If I didn't want straight As in college, all I had to do was show up at lecture, do my homework and labs, and could solidly earn B+ (at a top-tier challenging college in an engineering program).

My degree earned me a place in the working world, but I rarely use the book learning. I have a hard-work ethic which comes from working and earning money during HS to pay for college and not from the school side of my HS life.

But what I want most for my sons is to be challenged (really, truly challenged) and engaged in school and to grow up and be happy, productive, and self-supporting.

Right now, I am trying to decide whether to send my 5-year old to all-day Kindergarten in the fall or half-day (and homeschool in the afternoon with our nanny while his younger brother is napping). He just finished a year of all-day kindergarten at a private school (where he was apparently at the top of his class despite being a year younger than most kids). He's on the young side of 5 for kindergarten this fall anyway, so skipping ahead to first grade is competely out of the question (plus new school, transitions, etc...I'm just not ready for it). The decision feels both make-or-break and completley inconsequential in the grand scheme at the same time.

[Tamar]

Interesting that most people seem philosophically inclined against g&t. I too am uncomfortable with the labeling such young children, but at the same time, how do you address real differences? For most of my school career I experienced what honestly, though it sounds dramatic, I can only describe as a visceral pain feeling of abject boredom. I also had to do a ton of other kids' work, which I resented. I will pretty much do anything to prevent my son from going through the same, though he's only two and I have no idea what his needs will be in grade school. I'm not saying that pull-out g&t or super early testing is necessarily a good thing, but I do think that there are some kids who will suffer without some accommodation to their abilities. Maybe the IEP model would work - allowing a child to pursue added reading or more difficult problem sets.

[Geek in Rome]

I think one point that was crucial in this chapter was just because a child didn't test well, didn't mean she was doomed to never be "smart" or gifted.

As Cloud alluded to hard work, concentration, determination, and patience/respect for the boring stuff will lead to success. My husband struggled with math for years and today he is a really smart engineer.

Someone mentioned in another post about the book The Outliers. It's a great companion to this chapter because it shows you can be super smart IQ-wise but without the proper support, drive and grind (the 10,000 hrs theory) you may end up in a trailer (no offense to people in trailers.) Also being labeled gifted and smart may make the kid shy away from risk or not apply oneself when something doesn't come easily.

My mom was a teacher and abhored the tracking/GT programs at her high school for the same reasons some here mentioned namely that struggling kids had noone smart to learn from. Behavior problems were worse for classes filled with the inadvertently-labeled "dumb" kids. Mixed ability classes were much easier to manage.

I went to a private K-12 and there was no tracking. Classes were small and we had mixed abilities, however, anyone going there def.ly came from a privileged background economically or academically so in reality we were segregated from really academically challenged kids.

But I was exposed to lots of un-bookish folk by growing up in the boonies. I learned a lot from this other world where book-learning is looked down upon. Honest labor, solidarity, loyalty, humor, humility, pride, and other country values were tantamount.

I also learned to love learning about folklore and folk remedies or traditions like only digging up taters during a full moon -- following the cues of Mother Nature and tradition.

I feel we do need more balance and respect for simpler folks, their cultures and things not written in books. The "smart" guys don't always have the right way or answer and I doubt G&T kids would grow up with much respect for or understanding of street or farmer culture.

[Tami]

My name finally came up on the library waiting list for this book and I'm excited to read it. I had a similar college experience with calculus and organic chemistry as Cloud describes except I did not know how to study and only managed a C in those classes. Another interesting book that might change perspectives on giftedness is a new book by David Shenk, "The Genius in All of Us: Why Everything You've Been Told About Genetics, Talent, and IQ Is Wrong" I was fascinated by an interview with him on MPR. He talked extensively about how child prodigies or children identified as gifted believe that because their gift is inate, they shouldn't have to work at improving. They believe that if they have to study or work at developing their gift, it means they aren't smart. They as a group take less risks. My experience reflects that. I remembered thinking that I must not be smart when I struggled in precalculus my junior year of high school. I eventually dropped the class to protect my GPA. I wish someone then would have shown me how to study. Instead despite graduating as a valedictorian, I struggled my first two years of college until I figured out what my learning style was and what method of studying worked for me. Parenting three boys now, I try to emphasize practice and working hard to achieve versus inate skill.

[Lisa]

Thanks, Charisse.

I'm going to expose myself, and my kid, here - and I fear it'll make me unpopular.

I was that kid. My son is that kid, exponentially. He spoke at 4 months, and hasn't stopped since. He needs mental stimulation as much as he needs to eat. And he's also a typical four-year-old boy, *not* a mini-adult. All the evals (and we've now done several) say profoundly gifted - *and* with visual-processing learning disability. So: at almost-4, had verbal abilities of an 8-year-old. Probably won't read til 6 or 7, or later, at a point when his verbal abilities will be - god knows. Totally fun to parent? Check. But: Frustrated much?

So... preschool didn't work out so well. When a kid wants to talk about how the rotation of the earth means it's bedtime in Scotland, and let's build a train to go there, and if we go fast enough... his peers reply with blank stares. Throw in repeatedly being bitten... the resultant acting-out/depression was not pretty.

When he told me he felt "like a misfit," we bailed and homeschooled for this year. Trying again (an amazing "transitional K" program with focus on emotional and social learning, and assurance they can differentiate for him intellectually) in the fall. Fingers crossed.

What's my point? There's "pleasantly gifted" - aka moderately or highly gifted - and I suspect many such kids can be served at least decently by the public school system - if that is, the system actually has the capacity and desire and resources to serve them via individuation/differentiation, grade/subject-skipping, project-based learning, etc.* And these kids NEED that. Without it, you get serious acting out (boys), going underground and playing dumb (girls), runaway egos and lack of chance to connect deeply with kids they have stuff in common with.

(*Pull-outs are a total joke. Whee - play chess with other kids less inclined to beat you up for two hours a week? Fine. But, it's a band-aid.)

But kids who are a lot more unusual, or who are "2e" (twice exceptional - silly term, but that's the lingo)? They need something different. We've seriously considered moving to Denver or LA, cities where they have public programs for such kids. We're on the waitlist at the local gifted private (though they have a mixerd track record on 2e stuff). Not sure what the future holds.

Re the Bronson book: yes, IQ and achievement tests for 4-year-olds aren't exactly a great option. They don't serve middle-class kids well, and they often completely ignorte low-SES kids. But there *are* kids who need something radically different from the norm, kids from all backgrounds. They're not better, but they are different - and often in radically uneven ways. They need challenge, and peers, and acceptance, just like all kids do. The backlash against GT issues as a whole puts these kids at a huge risk, and being reductive or dismissive of the issue is no help.

[caramama]

I'm no genius, but I am "smart"... if only I'd "apply myself." Ha!

To me, this chapter goes totally hand in hand with the chapter on praise. Although I can see the benefit for kids who are bored in regular classes, I see pulling kids out of "regular" classes and into "gifted" classes as simply saying, "you guys are smart." NOT saying, "you guys work hard and put in lots of effort." I wonder if there is a way to do both...

I say this from my experience, as we all are. In my elementary school, I was put in the g&t program sometime between 2nd and 4th grade (I'm fuzzy in my memories there), but I HATED the extra work. I didn't see the point, therefore didn't make the effort. I didn't care if I was in the g&t program or not, so I did nothing to make sure I stayed in it. I did the work I was interested in and enough to get by, and I continued to read and learn on my own when things interested--having older siblings helped with that.

So they pulled me out of the g&t program because I didn't "apply" myself. And I was glad. I did fine in the regular classes, but I was also in the #1 elementary school in MD, so even regular classes were pretty good.

Along those lines, I was selected to take the Pre-SATs in 7th grade. I've always tested well mainly because I test well. But the day before the test (which was on a Saturday morning), I told my mom I didn't want to do it. She gently encouraged, I pleaded, she didn't push, I didn't take it. And I'm really glad I didn't. I don't know why, except that it was too much pressure for me at the time. I just wanted to watch cartoons and play with my friends on Saturday.

So that's my perspective. Having said all that, I'm really looking forward to starting my super-genius (remember that Moxie post about all our kids being super-geniuses?) in a Montessori school this fall, where she will be in a mixed age class (3-6, I believe), get to focus on work that interests her most, have hands-on learning experiences, and learn skills from older kids which she will eventually teach to younger kids. I'm sure it's the right environment for her at this age.

Thank goodness they didn't make her take a test to get in. I'm stressed just thinking about that!

[casey]

One thing I was surprised this chapter did not address is how the schools break down age cut-offs for kids. In many other countries, there are two of each grade up until kids are about 9- one for kids born in the first half of the year, and one born in the second. A kid born in July/Aug/Sept. with a Sept. 31st cut off (youngest in class) is in a very different place developmentally that a kid born in Oct/Nov./Dec. (oldest in class).
The differences level out at around the same time- 3rd grade.
What often happens is kids who are the youngest end up in lower reading/math groups, and over years a true gap is created where there should not have been one. More about this in M. Gladwell's Outliers...kind of goes hand in hand with this chapter.

[flea]

@Lisa, I don't think anyone here is arguing that giftedness doesn't exist - I think there are some children whose level of ability, motivation, or what-have-you, makes them unsuited to a traditional classroom, maybe even basically uneducable in that situation. It must be frustrating to have one of those - in a way it's as challenging as having a developmentally delayed child, I imagine. Our society is geared to "normal."

My "gifted backlash" is all about the local context. I swear to you, half the point of the gifted program in my school district is to keep white upper-middle-class families from placing their smart children in private school. Most of the gifted kids - all the ones I know personally - are like my daughter: smart kids with families that support learning and reading and curiosity. Not kids whose needs are greater. Why should they get to do science experiments and not ALL the first graders?

[Tamar]

Lisa, you said what I meant to say better than I did. Wishing your son a good experience in the fall.

[Cloud]

@Lisa- what you describe is a kid who truly needs something different. I think @flea is right- you're going to have parenting challenges that those of us with kids who are just sort of smart won't understand. We had a family friend whose kid was sort of like that. They figured things out for him, I can't remember the details of what they did for him (I think some special camps were part of the equation as he got old enough), but he is a happy, well-adjusted young man now who is also performing up to his extraordinary mental capabilities and I think his parents should be really proud of that, because I'm sure that wasn't easy to achieve.

My problem with the standard gifted programs is that they aren't targeting the kids like your son. They are casting a wider net, and maybe not doing that in the best way.

Regardless, I don't judge ANY parent for trying to do what is best for their child, even if that means working in a way that bends some of your core beliefs about what is fair because the system is broken. You have to do what is right by your kid.

As I said in my first post- I don't have a school age kid yet, and I am certain that my ideas and beliefs will be challenged as we start figuring out what to do with our own kid (who is probably sort of smart, but not extraordinary).

[Claudia]

My experience in school (U.S., 70s and 80s) was that until middle school we were just all together. I remember being placed in a special group for math in 3rd grade, and then losing my placing after one assignment or test or something. Though I'm not great at math now, I was pissed to have lost my special status.
Then in middle and high school, we had advanced placement classes for English, history, science and math disciplines. I assume we got into those based on testing. I was always in advanced English, and was glad to have had a challenging class like that.

In 8th grade, I was selected for a TAG (Talented And Gifted) program, which meant leaving class once a week for a couple of hours. I don't recall at all what we did, but after a few weeks I told my dad I was bored and wanted to quit. He was rather dismayed, but let me on the condition that I read books of his choosing and write book reports on them. I remember reading How To Lie With Statistics and learning quite a lot from it.

In Denmark, where I now live, the schools are required by law to meet special needs of students, whether they be delayed, advanced, learning disabled, whatever. That is wonderful in theory, but of course all over the map in reality. My DD is now 4, so we've yet to see how it shakes out in our school, and of course whether she'll need any help in being challenged (I suspect she'll be bored when they start learning English).

The chapter? It was not surprising and left me wanting to know more.

As for what purpose school serves, I think it's primarily to learn how to deal with all types of people, how to follow social norms, a bit of academics, and hopefully give a sense of how to complete a task given in an effective way. Though I'm a teacher, I teach small groups of adults. The thought of teaching children seems far too much.

I realize this is rambling. Lots to think about here.

[caramama]

@Charisse - I read the story you linked to, and that is awesome! IMO, that sounds like the right direction for schools to go. Don't assume that all kids learn or even should learn at the same pace. Be open to different ages in the same classes. Of course, that will work best if respect for all ages is a normal part of the culture (something I think Montessori schools do). If teachers and parents and even the administration support the learn-on-your-level and be-kind-to-all-no-matter-the-age, I think that really could be a fantastic way to improve the school systems. Apparently it's working well in Maine and Alaska, and has been working well in many Montessori schools across the globe.

[nej]

Can all the gifted kids say "He-ay." Has every one on here been in the gifted program at one time or another? It sure seems like it.

I only got halfway through the comments as I have to do a speedy cleaning before DH gets home and I get busted for not holding up my end of the bargain.

But as someone who was 1) a painful introvert 2) geekily interested in things way to adult for her age group 3) tested into gifted in 4th grade 4) and was always the new kid (three schools in one year, please), I hated gifted almost as much as I loved it. It was the only time where I could let down my guard and geek out with the best of them. "Did you watch that archeology special on PBS the other night? SO DID I!" But it was also a softball to the other kids who wanted to pick on me and weren't smart enough to come up with something on their own. :)

I have a million unformed thoughts swimming around in my head on this topic (slow-to-process introvert here!) but I did read the chapter and we talked this horse to death when I was getting my Masters in Elem Ed, but more than anything, this chapter reiterated the idea that our school system is so irrevocably flawed. We would have to bring what we currently do to a screeching halt and switch to a Montessori-style system, and if it's anything like the way our schools switched us to the metric system, then certainly pigs will be flying (and flying to the moon and back) before it ever happens.

Oh, and don't even get me started on what to do for my own children. While I really, really want to support public schools, I more importantly want to support my child. And the current system is not built for boys (as a former teacher, I know this through-and-through.) And E's just like his mama, an introvert to the core. In fact, we are pre-k drop-outs right now as he started to think of pre-k summer camp as punishment, even though DH and I did everything in our power to portray it as happy fun time and I was even driving him far away to a camp that his BFF goes to. So, yeah. (And please, don't anyone whisper homeschool loud enough for me to hear.)

On a tangential note, why haven't we started Moxie-ville? We could all live commune-style, and play to our strengths. Some of us could be cooks, and some of us could teach the children, some of us could be counselors, and some of us could clean (one-two-three not me.) But seriously, I will spend the weekend dreaming of living in a world surrounded by such strong, intelligent, self-aware, and compassionate women.

[Charisse]

@Lisa if that's Lisa in SF I just FB-msged you. Lotsa hugs!!

[Charisse]

thinking some more: school is really the only area where we try to identify someone as "gifted" or "not gifted" across such a broad range of actual skills. Nobody suggests that all 8-year-olds should take piano together because they're 8, no matter what their level; nobody suggests all 5-year-olds should take swimming together whether they can't float or can swim lengths, just because of their social development. On the other hand, we don't try to identify the "athletically gifted" and separate them from everybody else for BOTH soccer and gymnastics no matter what - we look at those activities individually. (And classically, I'm bottom 20% at visual arts & responsiveness, w/o question!)

It would make a lot more sense to me if we looked at academics similarly. And if we treated academics as a similarly important interest - don't assume that kids that are into them are necessarily being pushed, or that less intellectual forms of play are somehow more playful or better. I loved academics - @caramama, I mean no disrespect but I would have much rather taken the SATs than watched cartoons on a saturday when I was 12 - in fact I did, and did pretty well. I'm well aware that a lot of people would think that meant there was something missing about me, but I'm perfectly social - it's just that I was so damn verbal that I was way more interested in conversation and puzzles and long novels than in cartoons or what you'd conventionally call child's play at that point.

& I honestly did resent the mixed-ability classes I had to be in once I got out of gifted school and into high school - I think they work a lot less well in practice than in theory, because they're rarely set up to keep everyone learning. there's an idea that kids with more advanced skills will gain a deeper understanding by teaching kids with less advanced skills, but teaching is actually a VERY advanced social skill, and understanding how another person learns is often beyond a kid, however smart at an academic skill. And while it's a skill they may need to learn, there's a really painful kind of thwarting when you're just told that no one will help you learn something you really want and have the ability to move forward on.

I don't know the answer about early testing, but I'm pretty sure that doing nothing until 3rd grade doesn't work for a few kids. It's tough.

[Snarky Mommy]

Didn't have time to read all the comments (but read most) so not sure if this came up, but this is why we are doing Montessori.

Both husband and I were in G&T programs starting in fourth grade. While we are smart, well-educated adults, I would certainly not say either of us has any extraordinary mental abilities. We're just normal.

Our 4yo son is extremely verbal, has a memory like a steel trap and can already read and write. Do I think he's smart? Yes. Gifted? No.

But Montessori allows him to learn at his own pace. His teacher told us he finished the 3-year-old math by the end of the first quarter, and started the next level right afterward. I love it that he can work with the 5-year-olds on their work if he wants to. Can't say enough about how this will help him as time goes on.

[vanessa]

@snarkymommy--we actually learned in my ed.program that traditional Montesorri programs tend to stifle kids' creativity more then anything else, at least with most kids.(most programs are not actually that traditional in the US, but still, it is interesting!)

As for the gifted issue--I'm smart, not super smart, not genius smart, but smart enough. Smart enough that I was bored by some things in school--reading and writing stuff, especially, because I read freakishly fast and always have--and had a really hard time w/ math due to some learning issues. What I really needed was a small, nurturing private school, which I got for a couple years in late ES and for all of HS, the latter being especially successful. However, public school was a disaster and I was miserable--and what made it trickier is that I was quite gifted naturally in some areas and in others have much of the ability but was too anxious to do much of anything with that. I don't have a solution, but I do think this is part of the reason that what we really need is a corps of well trained teachers. Really, really well trained, who can keep track of all kinds of different learners...but of course, that may be impossible!

[maria]

@vanessa, I'm interested in the reasons Montessori programs are thought to stifle creativity.

[Lisa]

@maria: Re Montessori - no official info here, just experience and intuition. Everyone told us Montessori would be great for T., that he could work at his own pace, etc. So i looked at 6 Montessoris. Thing is, my kid is waaay into imaginative play - it's how he processes the world. I asked each one question - "If my son wanted to build an igloo with the unit blocks, how would you respond?" Most said they'd show him how to use them properly, or redirect him to another activity. Only one said "As long as he respects the materials, that'd be fine," and that school was more Montessori-influenced than hardcore Montessori. (Every Montessori is different - apparently anyone can use the name, so they vary a lot in how strictly they adhere to Maria M's practices.)

And there was a lot of (quiet, gentle) order. "We walk with quiet feet, we talk with quiet voices....") I think this would be great for the right kid - probably would have been great for my introverted child-self. But not for my rambunctious, creative boy.

Anyway - I don't know if they stifle creativity, but as I understand it, they do have kids work through a variety of tasks with specific toys/tools/etc., in a specific order. Kids can start at different points, depending on readiness as teachers/guides see fit, and the kids' interests are a big factor. But there's not really room/structure for dramatic/imaginative/pretend play.

[Lisa]

@flea, I totally hear you re all the racism and classism inherent in so many local gifted programs. "Why should they get to do science experiments and not ALL the first graders?" Why indeed? They *should* all get to do it, period. There should just also (in that world where pigs fly) be some support and outlet for kids who want - and NEED - to go deeper, move faster when they do it.

In addition to above isms, there's another problem - an idea on the part of teachers and administrators that gifted = bright, well-behaved, generally quick and pliant. Which, in our culture, means upper-middle-class kids. White kids. Girls. So kids who act out because they're bored out of their skulls don't get the invite. Kids who act like people-pleasers do. Too many GT programs just reinforce those expectations, missing the kids who need them most.

I pleased everyone else for 30 years, so they would then leave me alone and I could do what i wanted. Yes, I was a model "gifted" student. No, I was never, ever really challenged until college, and then mostly because I had to learn how to (a) study and (b) stop cutting class all the time, if I still wanted to get As. I'm 42 now, and my work ethic is still crap, but I'm working on it. Every day as a writer I struggle to do the hard work, not just phone it in and please everyone else. It's a hard habit to break.

[Lisa]

By the way, thanks for the support and understanding, all. It's hard to talk honestly about parenting a kid who's an outlier - though of course we're lucky that so much of the outlying is positive; we have it far easier than many. And the politics around education in this respect are just so icky. It grieves me. Yet I don't know what the schools should do - I'm basically trying to save my kid from some really bad outcomes.

I'm just so tired. We've toured 40 schools in four cities. We've gone into debt to homeschool (which is far more expensive than private school, since I work only 20% time now, instead of the planned 75%). I'm that crazy lady at the playground foisting my business card on the parent of any kid my son seems to click with. He needs true peers, and I need a vacation.

Moxie-Ville, ho!

L.

[Lisa]

@nej, click through if you want to talk pre-K droputs. (For what it's worth, temporary homeschooling isn't as bad as you think... though I'm praying fervently for success in September.) And I can pass on a ton of resources for schooled or non-schooled kids and their parents in such situations.

[Lisa]

@Tamar, that offer to nej applies to you too. Or any of you. There has to be some good use for all the reading and research I've done this year...

[Lisa]

Doh. Apparently it doesn't link to my e-mail address: lisa (at) ampedit (dot) com.

[kathleen999]

I signed my boys up for gifted testing during pre-K (for the K year) but when the boy who has more verbal skills couldn't do the pre-test with his dad, we canceled it. For God's sake, they weren't even 4 yet! Our boys are born 11 days before the age cutoff and gifted testing was just out of the question. Unfortunately, one is showing signs of being bored in class already. He is already reading at the F level. (C was the requirement to finish kindergarten.) I am thinking of getting him tested for 2nd grade. I think it might be good for him be in gifted classes. I found myself severely underchallenged in school and my husband even more so. I want my kids to enjoy school and not feel bored. I think for most kids, regular school is fine, but accelerated classes and gifted classes keep brighter kids interested and challenged, and that's what they need.

[habeas]

Further notes on "giftedness" and resentment after reading these comments: I think the question of what school is for is the key point. Is it to enable each student to learn to the limits of their abilities? Because putting "gifted" kids full-time in the same classroom with average and below average kids makes that impossible. I taught in a classroom with full-inclusion during the mid-1990's, which meant then that there was no "tracking," but teachers were expected to manage children with significant mental and physical disabilities right next to high intellectual achievers. It was a complete disaster for all the students, for reasons I hope are obvious. Gifted kids need a dedicated space and a dedicated educator at least some of the time to be sure that someone is paying attention to who they are and what they are capable of.

Our kids, upon graduation, will be in a globalized society where they will be competing for jobs and other important resources against children who were challenged to the limits of their abilities. I think the schools moving away from age-based work are a key experiment in moving toward educating by ability rather than the arbitrary yardstick of age.

[Shandra]

Another Formerly Gifted Child(tm) weighing in here. I'm not a gifted adult, for what it's worth.

I remember my elementary school experience as pretty awful. I was one of those freak asynchronous learners who spontaneously absorbs things randomly combined with an academic family that went overboard in encouraging precocious stuff. As a result I was a social mess. I also was assigned to "help" other kids and I spent most of 3rd grade at the library as that teacher's approach to giftedness was to send the kids who had finished the grade 3 math and reading curriculum to the library.

In grade 7 I went to a school for nerds that you had to test into and my life improved immensely. It was not a hundred-percent great experience but it came close, and it also approximated a more normal environment since everyone was smart and so no one ended up consistently on the top in every subject, etc. Socially it was great because it was 'ok' to get obsessed about, say, Carl Marx for a term and didn't mean you'd never date again or whatever.

As a liberal right-thinking person, I would like all people to learn together in harmony and understanding. As a person carrying childhood wounds, I think if my son ends up in the same kind of position I will try really hard to get him either into a specialized program in public school or fund a private school education.

Right now he's in Montessori and we're very happy with it. I could address the imaginative play issues but I think it's really dependent on the school (ours doesn't discourage it, just doesn't adult-lead it) but also I think it's because "imaginary play" is poorly understood. An igloo is not imaginary and wouldn't be treated as such in our Montessori. :)

[Shandra]

(con't) I guess I should say that how it would be treated (I'm pretty sure) is that:

a) At the time the child would be left alone as long as the materials were being respected (not thrown/broken etc.)

b) The assumption would be that the work wasn't engaging enough on its own so new works would be presented/offered. If the child weren't interested, it would be no big deal. But that would be the kind of base assumption: if the material isn't engaging on its own, it's the material's issue not that child's.

c) Books and materials about the arctic peoples or types of dwellings might come out. Or the parent might get an email (as I have) something like "Your child is really into Egypt; do you know King Tut is in town?")

[ARC]

Wow, I think you all are My People :) Not exactly on topic here, but in both the public and Catholic schools I attended, the smart/gifted/nerdy etc kids were teased mercilessly and at the bottom of the social hierarchy.

I'd hate for my daughter (if she turns out to be "smart") to go through the same stuff.

Friends who grew up in India said they actually teased the kids who weren't doing well in school and that it made you a social pariah. Not that I advocate that, but wow, what a motivating factor to work hard/study/do well.

I didn't feel "at home" until I went to Geeky Institute of Technology for college. And there I was definitely in the bottom 50% of my class. But it didn't matter, because:

1. I finally learned how to study
2. I figured out what I was interested in and didn't have the pressure of needing to dress the "right" way or try to be popular, etc.
3. Socially, I was the happiest I had EVER been.

Having the smart kids "teach" the others just made me feel like more of an outcast. Plus it was mind-numbingly boring. Group projects and teamwork are great at teaching kids to work together, but I didn't feel like it was "my job" to *teach* the other kids. It made me resentful, and didn't make me any less bored in school. (not to mention it was totally crappy for me, socially as well.)

Sign me up for the Moxie commune :)Wow, I think you all are My People :) Not exactly on topic here, but in both the public and Catholic schools I attended, the smart/gifted/nerdy etc kids were teased mercilessly and at the bottom of the social hierarchy.

I'd hate for my daughter (if she turns out to be "smart") to go through the same stuff.

Friends who grew up in India said they actually teased the kids who weren't doing well in school and that it made you a social pariah. Not that I advocate that, but wow, what a motivating factor to work hard/study/do well.

I didn't feel "at home" until I went to Geeky Institute of Technology for college. And there I was definitely in the bottom 50% of my class. But it didn't matter, because:

1. I finally learned how to study
2. I figured out what I was interested in and didn't have the pressure of needing to dress the "right" way or try to be popular, etc.
3. Socially, I was the happiest I had EVER been.

Having the smart kids "teach" the others just made me feel like more of an outcast. Plus it was mind-numbingly boring. Group projects and teamwork are great at teaching kids to work together, but I didn't feel like it was "my job" to *teach* the other kids. It made me resentful, and didn't make me any less bored in school. (not to mention it was totally crappy for me, socially as well.)

Sign me up for the Moxie commune :)

[Lisa]

@Shandra, thanks for the more specific info on Montessori. That sounds like a wise and helpful response. I guess what I'm saying is that one needs to take learning styles into account when choosing a school and educational method. As a kid, I (introverted, verbal, highly visual/spatial, all about scribbling or building in a corner) would have loooved Montessori. My son (super-extrovert, super-verbal, auditory learner, giant ham, boy) needs to imagine/act/play to learn - we've been reenacting the first moon landing this week, complete with costumes. Guess who always gets to be Neil Armstrong?

So at least for preschool, Montessori wouldn't be a good fit. But when he's older... I wish there was an elem. program here we could check out. I love so many things about the philosophy. And it seems like they get so many things right that most American schools totally miss.

[caramama]

@nej - I'm in for Moxieville!

@Charisse - No disrespect taken. I know that there were other kids really looking forward to taking the SATs. My point was (as rambling as it was) that not all kids should be pushed into the classes or taking the tests. Some kids (like me) would be much happier in the regular classes because it fits their needs better. There are plenty of kids who needed something more, more of a challenge, and were seriously bored in the regular classes. The current system isn't simply trying to help those kids with their needs, but pushing kids who shouldn't be/stay in those classes down that track, and not accounting for those who should get in later.

Also, I have a comment about sports and other activities dividing by age and "gifted-ness." Please don't take offense, but I disagree to some degree. Take swimming, for example. Swim teams are divided by age, and then they are also divided by ability. In my youth, it was the A Team for the faster/more able swimmers, and the B Team for everyone else. There were different lanes for the teams during practice, and different meets for competing. One of the good things about it, though, was that you could qualify or disqualify (although I think they had a nicer term) any week simply by being fast enough. And think about high school, which has varsity and junior varsity teams. If you are good enough at a younger age, you can get into the varsity team. It just seem very similar to me, in general, to the academics.

@Lisa - I hope you can find a good school for your outlier! My experience in a small, private school was the best year of my life. There is a lot to be said for schools with small classes, knowledgeable teachers and flexibility to accommodate each side of the outliers. I hope you find the right place. I might be emailing you to get more of your knowledge on Montessori schools!

@kathleen999 - You bring up a good point about skipping grades. I know that worked out well for a few kids I knew, although it could be a tough stigma on the kids who skip or are held back.

[the milliner]

Thank you to all for your very insightful and very personal posts. It's so encouraging and reaffirming to have direct conversations with others who have lived/are living all that is expressed here. Reading through the comments I'm struck by how deeply rooted this all is and how it's had such a profound effect on our lives. Self-actualization (while maintaining my integrity) is for me, the ultimate goal. Having things/people/environments in my life that impede this (or worse, discourage it) is a critical issue for me, so I'll be hyper aware of that for my son. After reading all of your posts, I am committed more than ever to finding the right school environment for him.

"In addition to above isms, there's another problem - an idea on the part of teachers and administrators that gifted = bright, well-behaved, generally quick and pliant. Which, in our culture, means upper-middle-class kids. White kids. Girls. So kids who act out because they're bored out of their skulls don't get the invite. Kids who act like people-pleasers do. Too many GT programs just reinforce those expectations, missing the kids who need them most."

@Lisa, I couldn't agree with this more. I really do think there are a lot of kids who are the smart asses, the ones with the relentless questioning and challenging authority, the ones who want to do things the 'hard' more challenging/against the grain way, that are slipping through the cracks all of the time.

And "I pleased everyone else for 30 years, so they would then leave me alone and I could do what i wanted". OMG. Yes. YES! I think I'm still doing this to some extent. I've only really realised since becoming a parent that I spent much of my childhood and youth pleasing other people, not causing a problem. à

Only after reading your post did I make the connection that that is exactly how I managed to follow my own path - I pleased everyone else first so they would leave me alone and I could follow the path I wanted, which is so strong it feels like it's genetically predetermined.

While I've managed to develop a good work ethic (really strong drive to perfect things), my biggest struggle, still, is to start and continue things that I have to *work* at. (I realise these two ideas are conflictual, but somehow they co-exist in me). This is something I'm going to really try to work hard on/try to model with my son...that working hard and through rough patches has its rewards.

So, yeah. Moxieville...left at the fork in the road or right?

[Charisse]

@caramama no offense taken of course! That's actually the point I was making - yes we do separate athletics by ability *for particular activities* as we should but we don't try to identify a category of kids who are "athletically gifted" and put them automatically on the basketball A team because of their strength in swimming and tennis - nor do we expect the able swimmers to help the less able ones learn crawl stroke instead of working on their own butterfly.

And while there are broad ranges of ages in swimming lessons (competitions are more age based of course) they're primarily level-based - Mouse's class, for example, is for 6-11 year olds who can swim one length of crawl and backstroke. And I think the difference between now and when we were growing up is that, academically, schools are much more reluctant to put younger kids onto the varsity (i.e. move them up the grades) than they used to be. I think this is a shame, as it's a great solution for many gifted kids.