From: hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin)
Subject: Re: Branding kids, IQ tests, smart vs dumb (Was: Re: Seminar Program)
Organization: Purdue University Statistics Department
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 19:12:01 GMT

In article <1993Jan20.215406.18366@clpd.kodak.com> staffan@ca.serum.kodak.com (Kenneth Staffan (x37507)) writes:
>I have a couple ideas/opinions around the identification of "gifted" kids.
>I'd be interested in hearing others opinions around them:

>I don't really like the label "gifted".  One reason is because I don't
>like the unspoken implication that the _other_ children didn't get "gifts".
>In the 60's? 70's?, in New York State, certain children were "accelerated".  

I agree that the term is not good; how about using "talented" instead?

But we should call a spade a spade; the use of "mentally retarded" for
"lacking in mental ability" is just as much a misnomer.  Nobody has kept
them back, at least in the great bulk of cases.

>This term didn't bother me as much, I guess, maybe because it didn't
>mean that the other children couldn't do things, just that certain ones were
>capable of learning certain subjects faster.  I know I'm just arguing
>symantics, but I still don't like "gifted" (that having been said, though,
>I'll use it below :-).

>I don't really like the blanket treatment of gifted children - i.e. putting
>them in classes/programs/schools with other gifted kids.  While this may
>have the desired effect of making a particular subject, or academics in
>general, more challenging, I don't think it necessarily addresses the
>whole-learning process.  Just because a child exhibits a "gift" in a certain
>area, e.g. reading or math or languages, doesn't necessarily mean that this
>child is gifted in _all_ of those areas, not to mention the areas that 
>aren't typically measured, like social skills.

This is very definitely the case, and has been recognized.  But since what
is appropriate in "social skills" is subject to a great deal of disagreement,
should the schools be permitted to carry out this indoctrination agenda on
the part of the government and the schools of education?  We have seen this
on this group in the discussion of the emphasis on athletics; there are those
who approve of the current system, and those who would not object to completely
eliminating all athletic competitions from the schools.

>I believe that the powers of expectation are strong, and that the children
>in non-gifted classes will under-perform, and that the teachers of the 
>non-gifted classes will under-expect (what's the name for those two
>well-documented syndromes?..)

This is a major problem.  But it is the case that the ability differences
are large, and that a child gifted in a particular subject might be able 
to achieve a years' content in that subject in a few weeks or even more
quickly.  But the current gifted programs really are not much better than
what was expected for those who could successfully complete a reasonably
good academic program before the social adjustment reformation, and at the
elementary school level are distinctly weaker than what all were supposed
to do then.

>It's funny that this topic has come up just now.  About a week ago, one
>of my 21-month-old son's preschool teachers pulled me aside.  She told me that
>she thought he was gifted in languages, because his vocabularly is at the level
>of the 3-4 year old class, rather than the toddler class he is in.  I don't
>know what she must have thought of me!  I told her that I thought all of
>the kids were gifted in certain aspects, etc.  She corrected me, and said
>that no, this was special, and I should get him tested, nurture the 
>skill, challenge him, etc. 

It is necessary to reconcile yourself to this.  And if he is gifted in certain
directions, he will have to get used to the idea that not everyone can "see 
the obvious."  My parents had to get used to the fact that my siblings could
not match my academic performance, and they had no real idea what to expect.
My two children, both academically quite strong, were still not even in the
same ballpark in some fields.  
-- 
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
Phone: (317)494-6054
hrubin@snap.stat.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet)  
{purdue,pur-ee}!snap.stat!hrubin(UUCP)
Xref: sparky misc.education:6079 misc.kids:33125 sci.edu:1447