| ▲ | roguecoder 7 hours ago |
| The whole point of "gifted" was that these are kids who are disproportionally likely to drop out of school, engage in risky behavior, get pregnant, get bad grades, etc. The problem is that A. they called it "gifted" so people thought it was something you _wanted_ your kids to be and B. the screening test they used was the IQ test, which you can massively improve your score on by studying for it. So parents were determined to get their kids into "gifted" education, and coached their kids on the tests to get in, and in the meantime kids from less-privileged backgrounds with the same characteristics were being labeled as behavioral problems and shunted into remedial programs. Now that we have the label of "neurodivergent", it seems to me it would be productive to reframe "gifted" education as "neurodivergent" education: rich parents would stop trying to get their kids into it, and it would be able to serve the kids it was intended to serve. |
|
| ▲ | mattnewton 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| where did you get the impression the genesis for "gifted" programs was to solve high iq problem kids? this is the first I'm hearing of that. |
| |
| ▲ | roguecoder 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | There were two strains, to be fair: there were eugenicist arguments as well, and some authors from the turn of the twentieth century go on at length about how the problem children probably aren't _actually_ gifted because truly superior people wouldn't misbehave. But for example, from "Classroom Problems in the Education of Gifted Children" (1917): "It is just as important for the bright child to acquire correct habits of work as it is for the dull or average child to do so, whereas in the ordinary class the brightest children are likely to have from a fourth to a half of their time in which to loaf, and never or rarely have the opportunity of knowing what it means to work up to the limit of their powers. The consequent habits of indolence, carelessness and inattention, which are so likely to be formed under such conditions, might be avoided by the provision, for such children, of special courses of such a nature as to fit their peculiar characteristics." | |
| ▲ | pessimizer 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | TFA could be your second time hearing about it: > These programs were originally meant to meet the needs of students with intense, often irregular learning patterns. They used to be seen as not needing special attention because they often excelled. As standardized testing required schools to aim for student proficiency, all the focus went to those who hadn’t met that mark. Those who exceeded it were deemed to be just fine. > But they’re not just fine. Gifted children, more than others, tend to shine in certain ways and struggle in others, a phenomenon known as asynchronous development. A third-grader’s reading skills might be at 11th-grade level while her social skills are more like a kindergartner’s. They often find it hard to connect with other children. They also are in danger of being turned off by school because the lessons move slowly. | | |
| ▲ | mattnewton 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | Thanks! I did not read that as being to prevent them from dropping out or getting pregnant, or other "problem kid" behavior, just at risk for academic problems in the future. When I was in school educators framed it entirely as "living up to your potential". I see what you mean though. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | moralestapia 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I ... I don't think that's true at all. >it seems to me it would be productive to reframe "gifted" education as "neurodivergent" education This I could get behind, because that's the definition of neurodivergent. |
|
| ▲ | newsclues 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| I was in the gifted program in Canada and while that may have been an aim, it was also to identify the best and given them opportunities to excel, to allow them to grow and go on to be extraordinary citizens. |
| |
| ▲ | roguecoder 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | That kind of moral value being given to what is just neurodiversity is a huge part of the problem. By implication, you've just called people with learning disabilities "the worst". Neither group of children benefits from morality being attributed to their neurodivergence. Least of all the kids who overperform and have learning disabilities at the same time. It is good that people are different. It doesn't make gifted kids better. |
|
