Gifted students exist. When we pretend they don't, we send the message that there is something wrong with them. I ran across this quote a while back: "Some degree of 'labeling' is essential if gifted children are to grow up understanding how and why they experience the world differently from others." (Kauffman)
If a label is all the school or district has to offer these students why bother? It's a sad fact that many gifted students are at-risk due to failure to meet educational and emotional needs. The labeling of "gifted" is in most cases an empty gesture.
As long as the government insists on labeling Special Education students, we must label gifted students, if for no other reason, to be equitable.
It would be a good thing if we evaluated students for eligibility as 'gifted' as extensively as we do for SpEd, requiring a category for their 'gift'.
It is the height of folly to think that all students have the same capabilities and interests. After elementary school, a student should self select at least some of their curriculum.
If we differentiate our instruction within our classroom, is it not reasonable to differentiate our classes?
I voted "None of the above" because all children are gifted in their own way. As a teacher, we must find what excites our students and we should tap that enthusiasm and guide them to achieve more than they thought they could. Labels as "gifted, special needs, special education, socially maladjusted, etc" create the cage in which students are placed. Our role is to help them to break free from those cages, discover their passion, and follow their bliss.
Wow, this is a hot topic! I voted no, not because I'm against special curricula and resources for academically advanced students, but because I believe the label "gifted" wrongly suggests that some students do not have gifts. I have yet to meet a child who doesn't have innate gifts -- that is, passions and capacities he or she is uniquely able to bring to the world. Some of the most academically and socially challenged students I've met also have some of the most stunning talents in music, visual art, and other arenas of human endeavor that we somehow overlook when deciding who is "gifted and talented," which in the schools means significantly better than average at reading or math.
"Accelerated Math" or "Accelerated Reading" are not merely politically correct labels for "gifted" education -- they are accurate.
Gifted students are a reality of eduction; however gifted does not equate to high achieving. Identification allows us (parents and educators) to better understand an individual student's abilities and learning style, so we can provide a learning environment both at school and outside of school that supports their social, emotional, and academic needs. We need to differentiate for all students, and we can not standardize differentiation. Identification is just a part, but a necessary/critical part of the process to begin to understand the gifted student.
I vote no. We can talk semantics: What defines gifted? Is a WISC score culturally biased? Etc.
I'm going to react to this one from my gut. We all live in Lake Wobegone where all of the children are above average. Even if you take a standard IQ score of 130+ as a descriptor of "gifted," in many parts of the country *well more* than 2% of the student population lies right there in the gifted segment of the bell curve. It means so little, especially in relation to hard work, and in the context of multiple intelligences.
It's also a political hot potato. As a former private school admissions director and as a parent, I could not be more fatigued with this topic!
The entire systems is forced, coerced for favor, non-self inspired nor recognizes the various potential of each individual. The "gifted" we describe refers to those best at following instructions in the current system. This said we should also get rid of "Instructors," "class," compulsory-curriculum, grades and testing and move to a constructive, more integrated and in context approach. Project and self based learning are examples. We should emphasize the ability to self educate.
Comments (55)
Comment RSSSign in or register to post comments
Gifted students exist. When
Gifted students exist. When we pretend they don't, we send the message that there is something wrong with them. I ran across this quote a while back: "Some degree of 'labeling' is essential if gifted children are to grow up understanding how and why they experience the world differently from others." (Kauffman)
Why Label?
If a label is all the school or district has to offer these students why bother? It's a sad fact that many gifted students are at-risk due to failure to meet educational and emotional needs. The labeling of "gifted" is in most cases an empty gesture.
As long as the government
As long as the government insists on labeling Special Education students, we must label gifted students, if for no other reason, to be equitable.
It would be a good thing if we evaluated students for eligibility as 'gifted' as extensively as we do for SpEd, requiring a category for their 'gift'.
It is the height of folly to think that all students have the same capabilities and interests. After elementary school, a student should self select at least some of their curriculum.
If we differentiate our instruction within our classroom, is it not reasonable to differentiate our classes?
Not Gifted?
If "gifted" is used to describe high performing students then "not gifted" or "slow learner" should be used to describe low performing ones. Right?
Technology In Class
http://www.technologyinclass.com/blog/
I voted "None of the above"
I voted "None of the above" because all children are gifted in their own way. As a teacher, we must find what excites our students and we should tap that enthusiasm and guide them to achieve more than they thought they could. Labels as "gifted, special needs, special education, socially maladjusted, etc" create the cage in which students are placed. Our role is to help them to break free from those cages, discover their passion, and follow their bliss.
All children are born with gifts
Wow, this is a hot topic! I voted no, not because I'm against special curricula and resources for academically advanced students, but because I believe the label "gifted" wrongly suggests that some students do not have gifts. I have yet to meet a child who doesn't have innate gifts -- that is, passions and capacities he or she is uniquely able to bring to the world. Some of the most academically and socially challenged students I've met also have some of the most stunning talents in music, visual art, and other arenas of human endeavor that we somehow overlook when deciding who is "gifted and talented," which in the schools means significantly better than average at reading or math.
"Accelerated Math" or "Accelerated Reading" are not merely politically correct labels for "gifted" education -- they are accurate.
Gifted students are a reality
Gifted students are a reality of eduction; however gifted does not equate to high achieving. Identification allows us (parents and educators) to better understand an individual student's abilities and learning style, so we can provide a learning environment both at school and outside of school that supports their social, emotional, and academic needs. We need to differentiate for all students, and we can not standardize differentiation. Identification is just a part, but a necessary/critical part of the process to begin to understand the gifted student.
What a Radioactive Topic
I vote no. We can talk semantics: What defines gifted? Is a WISC score culturally biased? Etc.
I'm going to react to this one from my gut. We all live in Lake Wobegone where all of the children are above average. Even if you take a standard IQ score of 130+ as a descriptor of "gifted," in many parts of the country *well more* than 2% of the student population lies right there in the gifted segment of the bell curve. It means so little, especially in relation to hard work, and in the context of multiple intelligences.
It's also a political hot potato. As a former private school admissions director and as a parent, I could not be more fatigued with this topic!
All children are gifted!
All children rare gifted. It is our responsibility, as parents and educators, to remind them of this everyday!
More Problems
The entire systems is forced, coerced for favor, non-self inspired nor recognizes the various potential of each individual. The "gifted" we describe refers to those best at following instructions in the current system. This said we should also get rid of "Instructors," "class," compulsory-curriculum, grades and testing and move to a constructive, more integrated and in context approach. Project and self based learning are examples. We should emphasize the ability to self educate.