Do Gifted And Talented Programs Really Work?

[Kullervo]

Maybe, but I can't remember gaining much from them. It really depends entirely on the quality of the teachers and their attitude, along with the classroom environment.

If you are going to work with "gifted" kids (I really, really dislike that word btw), then you need to be able to accomodate their eccentricities and have a flexible, more tailored curiculum. From experience, we did the same work as everybody else but just had (supposedly) the best teachers. Those teachers were very hostile to being asked questions, maybe they felt threatened by some of the work I produced and some of the things I said.

A lot of this is due to the abyssmal failure called New Zealand education. I am sure in larger cities or countries with more options, you can get better results.

 

[Mademoiselle]

I’m against classifying students.. the teacher should treat the students differently based on their needs, but it shouldn’t make difference..
Equally in a justice way. we’re all in the same community, we should get to know each other.. that’s more important to know than black holes in my opinion.

I think I was clear enough, ask me if you want me to explain more.​

 

[á´…eparted]

My story if you will, sort of off topic:

I was not in the GT program in elementary or middle school (high school didn't have one). In theory, I should have been no question, but I was a poor student. I wasn't dumb at all, I was just really lazy. I loathed homework assignments of any kind. I almost never did them unless it interested me or on the spur of the moment decided to do it out of necessity (i.e. getting in trouble). As such, my grades suffered a lot, and in my 1st to 7th grade school district (I moved to a different county for 8th to 12th grade) they put A LOT of emphasis on home work, studying, etc. which is not what I needed or wanted. In my mind, school was for school, home was for home, and they should not mix.

I had lots of tests preformed on me when I was young because I had behavioral problems and "marks of genius" in class, but without the grades or apptitude to support it. They wondered if I had learning dissabilities, wasn't challenged enough, challenged too hard, and everything in between. The reality? I hated in-between work (to this day I still do). I would see the end goal of what needed to be done, and just wanted to get there by my own means. In 4th grade they did a most of the tests on me, and my mother was told that they so badly wanted to put me in the GT program (my math skills were apparently at a 9th grade level for example), but they couldn't because I was lacking in english/reading skills (that was a product of laziness, I just didn't give a shit about it as I found it profoundly boring) and couldn't get my act together. I never did either.

A lot of why this happened is my thinking style. I am a conceptualizer. I'll usually intuitive figure out how something works but lack the in-between tools process to make it through it without assumptions/guesswork. This is why my math skills tested so high. The problems weren't so much of "solve for x" but the thought processes of how one needs to think through things. Because of this nature of "figuring things out", I would sit in class and just get something, it would make sense to me and I'd write it off as me knowing it without practicing or working at it. The problem is I wouldn't make it all the way with everything, and when it comes to the basics you have to practice. When I would try and something wouldn't come as easy as it did initially, I would get VERY upset with myself and prefer to quit. I didn't want to have to be faced so close with my own incompetence, so I preferred to ignore it. What I needed was the correct encouragement to use my talents. As opposed to being stuck in a system that just didn't work for me. I ended up failing reading in 7th grade (for different reasons from what I described above) largely out of a buildup/pattern of ignoring things I disliked, using my social/lying skills to spin stories so I didn't have to do homework and projects. I got so used to it became an automatic habit.

Once I got to 8th grade though things started to turn around. Different system, teachers that fit me and made a point to work with me and not judge based off my crappy history, and ultimately just a reset button that does WONDERS for me. I started to prove myself that I started high school in remedial english (below basic) as a freshmen, to advanced english my senior year. I also took two math classes my sophmore (geometry and algebra II). I was put into average level geoscience at the very beginning of freshmen year and was very upset (I wasn't perfect in 8th grade, I was about 75% where I needed to be), and raised hell demanding to be bumped up a year. Long story short I got put into biology after a few weeks, got to honors levels for sophmore, then took both AP chem (got a 5) and honors physics junior year, finally I took AP bio (got a 5), AP physics (this was dumb, they only offered the B class in my school, not the C. Thought I'd try the C test and ended up getting a 1 ), and an independent study in organic chemistry my senior year. I ended up winning the award for the most outstanding senior in science by a landslide. When I informed my teachers of where I was at and what I was like when I was young they were very surprised.

When I reflect on the huge leaps I took in high school, I simply needed a different system. They were right, I was GT material early on, I just didn't have the right conditions or mental facilities to handle it (aspergers syndrome being a major factor). Over christmas this past year when I was visiting my hometown, I stopped by my old elementary school to see some old teachers I haven't seen since I was 15 or so. What was interesting is several of them said they knew I would "snap out of it" eventually, and weren't worried. That it was just a "maturity issue". Ultimately, the fact that those comments were rather universal makes me wonder if GT would have boosted me at all. I ultimately rose as high as I could as far as level goes anyway. I think most of what it would have taught me would be better work ethic and not to knee jerk react to difficulties. Though I have to admit, those things would be really really useful.

It's interesting reflecting back on the kids who were in the GT program in my elementary school. None of them survived college IIRC. On in particular just gets high all the time and works as a bus boy in the Rockies at ski resorts just so he can be a bum. They're all rather smart from what I remember, but at the same time nothing too terribly special? My elementary school was very small (one class per grade), so it could have been a small sample size. What they mostly did was meet once a week for an hour or two and either play games to engage creative thinking, or work on slightly above grade level material. If someone was truly advanced they'd test them and they'd formally bump them up a level in a subject (they would have done so with me for math and science if I wasn't such a crummy problem student). One kid a year behind us skipped a grade in math and would come to our class for that material. There was a small group (about 6 or so) students from my 8th grade that were in a much better GT program than my previous schools had and started out high school quite far ahead in several areas. Only one took the area they truly excelled in and ran with it (and I'd rather he didn't, but that's another story). The others sort of got lazy and tired in high school and wanted to be done with all their advanced work. One of my good friends in high school was also in GT but she got tired too and requested to move down levels.

I don't think GT programs hurt, and I think they can help, but it matters on the drive of the student. Like all of education, there's a lot of factors to play in. There's really no clear cut yes no answer.

 

[Lady_X]

My kids are in it. They would be too bored otherwise.

 

[ygolo]

I moved a lot, and I liked the programs I was in. One issue of moving a lot is that there can be glaring gaps in education because things are covered at different times in different states/counties.

I don't have much to compare it to in terms of personal experience. Once, during middle school, I had to take classes at a near by high school, because the middle school didn't offer the level of courses I needed, and this was rather annoying. It lead to some rather bad experiences with bullying from the high school kids, and I was falling asleep in classes while acing the exams.

With that said, I think "gifted" programs sets up the wrong premise for how to do well, and becomes a self fulfilling prophecy to some extent. There can be horrible gifted programs, and there can be really good programs not labeled "gifted".

I realize, statistically, that where you learn doesn't matter much, but it tells us nothing about controlling factors. Things like encouraging curiosity, perseverance, and having teachers who care while setting high expectations are not factors that demographers track all that often. Education should not be about passing tests full of questions that have already known answers, anyways. But this is what is measured.

 

[skylights]

I was in "higher level" academic placements growing up... It felt rewarding, in terms of feeling coddled and appreciated. My schools had high quality intellectual resources and excellent instructors, but I also missed out on diversity and real world exposure because I was effectively in a bubble. I also do feel like I was less inclined to explore my individual talents because I was so focused on being academically successful. Was I "gifted"? I think that I have always had an interest in and aptitude for academics, but that's just one skill of many, many diverse skills that are valuable. In retrospect, I don't see it as a justifiable reason to segregate and privilege a certain group.

Moreover, I have heard from other people I love who were not in the higher level groups or who were in the remedial groups because of learning disorders or other issues in their lives and how their experiences were colored by frustration and often a certain amount of shame for not being "good enough" or in the "stupid kid" group. And these are people that have gone on to be very successful in their adult careers, who are smart and talented and making a difference in the world. The fact that they weren't identified as academic overachievers when they were little has essentially nothing to do with how they're doing now, despite what we were all led to believe back then. I feel like there is no way that I can support gifted and talented programs knowing that they make other kids - who may well be just as successful, if not more - feel less valuable.

I also think about my friend who harped on and on about how she was in the talent identification group and sort of built her life around that, being a counselor for that program and really making it a part of her identity. She now works as a hairstylist, which I think is a fantastic career for someone as artistic and creative as she is, but ironically stylists were people that she used to look down on because of her "elevated" status. I don't think that's a healthy perspective to encourage in children.

However - my little brother ended up showing an aptitude for science early in his life, and my parents got him into a public STEM magnet school, which seemed like a beautiful compromise of those high-quality academic resources without the artificial environment. It also rewarded, celebrated, and built upon the natural skills and interests of those students without devaluing others. IMO, that's an example of a school doing it right. I think we should encourage and cultivate the natural talents and skills and interests children demonstrate, rather than ranking them higher and lower, and to distribute high quality resources and experiences to all students.

 

[Mole]

There are a tiny number of us at one end of the Bell Curve who are gifted. And they have a measured IQ of 160 or above.

And interestingly the gifted are different, not only in IQ, but also emotionally.

The gifted are emotionally gifted in that they are over excitable (OE), or sometimes it is expressed as high emotional excitability.

So for their social integration it is important that the gifted join a group of their gifted peers at an early age.

Unfortunately many parents want their children to be gifted, but the statistics are completely against it. And so we have what we might call ersatz gifted classes for the vast majority who are not gifted.

In other words, being gifted is a form of parental snobbery for many.

Meanwhile the genuinely gifted can be overlooked, misunderstood, and relegated.

 

[Ivy]

I went to a very small private school for middle school, and was homeschooled for high school, so my only experiences were in elementary. I loved it in elementary school. I looked forward to it (for the first few years we had a full day once a week, and then for the last couple we had about an hour and a half every day). We did a lot of innovative stuff and took some really cool field trips. In retrospect, I do think all the students could have benefited from what we were exposed to, and I'm sure there was some cost to their self-concept to not be considered "gifted" (and probably some detriment to ours to BE considered "gifted" as well). But I can't complain about my own experience. It was a lot of fun and I learned a lot.

 

[Mole]

I went to a very small private school for middle school, and was homeschooled for high school, so my only experiences were in elementary. I loved it in elementary school. I looked forward to it (for the first few years we had a full day once a week, and then for the last couple we had about an hour and a half every day). We did a lot of innovative stuff and took some really cool field trips. In retrospect, I do think all the students could have benefited from what we were exposed to, and I'm sure there was some cost to their self-concept to not be considered "gifted" (and probably some detriment to ours to BE considered "gifted" as well). But I can't complain about my own experience. It was a lot of fun and I learned a lot.

So let me ask you: are you genuinely gifted? Do you have a measured IQ of 160 or above? And most importantly, do you have (OE) over exciteability?

Or perhaps you or your parents believe the New Age mantra that all children are gifted?

 

[Ivy]

So let me ask you: are you genuinely gifted? Do you have a measured IQ of 160 or above? And most importantly, do you have (OE) over exciteability?

Or perhaps you or your parents believe the New Age mantra that all children are gifted?

In the Stanford-Binet, which was used at my school, "gifted" starts at 130. Mine as tested when I was in Kindergarten was 145. I'm 100% certain I would not test that high now. Sucks to peak in elementary school.

I don't know what OE is, but I was diagnosed as an adult with ADHD (inattentive type) but don't really consider it a disability. Except when I lose my keys for the forty millionth time.

My parents believe in the mantra that their children are the best in the world and better than everyone else's children at everything. It didn't take me too super long to figure out they were a bit blind on that count and that I couldn't really trust anything they said about my abilities.

 

[1487610420]

Do gifted and talented programs in school work? I'm torn on the idea. On the one hand, it seems like you are segregating people into categories that they then self-identify with and these programs foster less than equal opportunity. On the other hand, it seems like there is a benefit to having groups of students with similar ability together because you can teach the class at a higher level. I recall being put in the "middle group" for english in the 7th and 8th grade presumably due to some standardized test scores. The thing is, I probably have some ability with that stuff so I'm not sure it was the right group. It took me a very long time to realize this. I think of the kids that are in the bottom group - it seems like that's the worst situation. They are pigeonholed and create potentially a negative self image because of it. This article on gifted and talented programs has some interesting discussion on it.

Any resemblance with typology is purely coincidental.

 

[Mole]

My parents believe in the mantra that their children are the best in the world and better than everyone else's children at everything. It didn't take me too super long to figure out they were a bit blind on that count and that I couldn't really trust anything they said about my abilities.

The purpose of psychoanalysis is to lead us to psychological independence from our parents. And so it seems you have achieved your psychological independence from your parents.

 

[Mole]

I don't know what OE is

OE or over exciteability is the hallmark of the gifted.

OE does mark the gifted out from others, so it is very easy for the gifted to be ostracised by the normal, so that is why it is important for the gifted to join a group of their gifted peers at an early age to foster their emotional and social development.

We can read about OE on http://www.sengifted.org/archives/articles/overexcitability-and-the-gifted
[MENTION=2]Ivy[/MENTION]

 

[Ivy]

Interesting- I'd never heard of it. I found this checklist: http://www.oldham.k12.ky.us/files/OverExcitability Checklist.pdf

Pretty much none of the psychomotor items apply to what I was like as a child, but pretty much all of the imaginational and emotional ones did, and a good chunk of the sensual and intellectual ones. Neat ideas- thanks for mentioning that. Now to think about how they apply to my kids...

 

[prplchknz]

I am neither talented nor gifted. I was thinking how in kindergarten we had to look at letter flash cards but they were all randomized. so I'd look at them I'd go into autopilot and end up reciting the alphabet even though I knew the correct answer, and it sucked. because kids would get like 8 m&ms and i'd only get 1 cuz you know the teacher probably felt bad. But I think it was unfair. And yeah I'm not resentful for being not talented nor gifted, but I like the idea of dividing kids up by learning style.

 

[Mole]

I am neither talented nor gifted. I was thinking how in kindergarten we had to look at letter flash cards but they were all randomized. so I'd look at them I'd go into autopilot and end up reciting the alphabet even though I knew the correct answer, and it sucked. because kids would get like 8 m&ms and i'd only get 1 cuz you know the teacher probably felt bad. But I think it was unfair. And yeah I'm not resentful for being not talented nor gifted, but I like the idea of dividing kids up by learning style.

Do let me say this -

We all fall on the Bell Curve which means that almost most of us are normal, and only a very tiny percentage are either sub-normal or ab-normal.

And I think it is far more fortunate for the individual to be normal.

I know our parents and ourselves are vain and want to see ourselves as gifted, but the reality is that we are lucky enough to be normal.

 

[Forever_Jung]

I dunno, in-class diversity isn't super appealing to me. I'm not gifted by ANY means (I actually spent some time in remedial classes), but I always stood out REALLY bad in "inclusive" classes. I was super enthusiastic and asked all kinds of crazy "What if" questions in class. Needless to say, they all hated me. One time, this guy was rubbing a peanut butter cookie on my arm in class. I asked him what he was doing, and he told me: I was just hoping you'd die from a peanut allergy. I got picked on so bad I ended up in anger management because I would freak out and cry from the strain of it all.

For this reason, I like the idea of at least "streaming" classes. Even if I'm not gifted, it'd be nice to be at least in a class with people who cared about school a little.

I usually did better in more demanding classes, just from more stimulating material and having like-minded classmates. When I was in diverse classes, they were making us do addition/subtraction tests well into grade 8, because the lower half of the class still hadn't mastered basic arithmetic. We didn't learn how to use a comma until grade 9. Someone in my 7th grade history class thought England was a US state and another student thought that the holocaust was a Jewish holiday. At that point, I don't give a shit about diversity, just get me outta there!

 

[prplchknz]

I dunno, in-class diversity isn't super appealing to me. I'm not gifted by ANY means (I actually spent some time in remedial classes), but I always stood out REALLY bad in "inclusive" classes. I was super enthusiastic and asked all kinds of crazy "What if" questions in class. Needless to say, they all hated me. One time, this guy was rubbing a peanut butter cookie on my arm in class. I asked him what he was doing, and he told me: I was just hoping you'd die from a peanut allergy. I got picked on so bad I ended up in anger management because I would freak out and cry from the strain of it all.

For this reason, I like the idea of at least "streaming" classes. Even if I'm not gifted, it'd be nice to be at least in a class with people who cared about school a little.

I usually did better in more demanding classes, just from more stimulating material and having like-minded classmates. When I was in diverse classes, they were making us do addition/subtraction tests well into grade 8, because the lower half of the class still hadn't mastered basic arithmetic. We didn't learn how to use a comma until grade 9. Someone in my 7th grade history class thought England was a US state and another student thought that the holocaust was a Jewish holiday. At that point, I don't give a shit about diversity, just get me outta there!

dude peanut allergies are so annoying. because we couldn't have the chik-fil-a biscuits for like a semster at the concession stand in highschool cuz a kid was allergic to nuts, and he kept saying it was bs because peanuts are legumes and not nuts. the chicken is fried in peanut oil. and apparently once fried the oil isn't as harmful. So yeah. this was before the whole anti-gay marriage thing happened. he finally convinced the school that he would not die if they sold the biscuits

 

[Forever_Jung]

dude peanut allergies are so annoying. because we couldn't have the chik-fil-a biscuits for like a semster at the concession stand in highschool cuz a kid was allergic to nuts, and he kept saying it was bs because peanuts are legumes and not nuts. the chicken is fried in peanut oil. and apparently once fried the oil isn't as harmful. So yeah. this was before the whole anti-gay marriage thing happened.

Yeah, when I was a kid, I definitely resented the kids who had allergies, because I ate peanut butter crackers every day from grade 1-4. Then BAM! Suddenly all these peanut alergies started appearing. Mind you, I'm glad no one died while I was in elementary school, but as a child, my number one concern was what I was eating.

 

[prplchknz]

Yeah, when I was a kid, I definitely resented the kids who had allergies, because I ate peanut butter crackers every day from grade 1-4. Then BAM! Suddenly all these peanut alergies started appearing. Mind you, I'm glad no one died while I was in elementary school, but as a child, my number one concern was what I was eating.

yup. and they vary in severity. some people can be around it and are fine if they don't physically eat it. others in the same room as peanutbutter they're dead.