
Why I pulled my son out of a school for 'gifted' kids - gexos
http://mashable.com/2015/11/03/gifted-school-drawbacks/?utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Mashable+%28Mashable%29&utm_cid=Mash-Prod-RSS-Feedburner-All-Partial&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed#Au5I_utD3PqI
======
Someone1234
You tell a kid they're smart: You've immediately set them up for long term
failure.

"Smart" is a quantifiable hard limit. The problem with smart people is that as
soon as they run up against a challenge/concept/issue they cannot immediately
overcome, they get frustrated, because they "should be smarter than this!"
Which often results in avoidable frustration/anxiety/depression.

You see this a lot. "Gifted" "smart" kids who coast through school for years,
until one day they finally run up against something they cannot do and run
away from it screaming. Simply because they're not "smart enough."

Where is the school program that let's the bullshit pseudo concept of "smarts"
fall by the wayside and instead replaces it with an atmosphere where failure
IS acceptable, and that you just have to work through the hard parts?

I have a kid. My wife's side is second generation "gifted." These people are
absolutely obsessed with how smart they are/sound/come across, and get
incredibly upset/frustrated/annoyed when they feel "dumb" (i.e. things are
hard, they don't get it right away, or they make a mistake).

Unfortunately when I raise the issue of "hey, focusing on an intangible level
of intelligence could be damaging [here look at this child research]" I just
get eye rolls, because they're so deeply into the concept of how innately
intelligent they are, they cannot see a less damaging way of living one's
life.

~~~
somesmartkid
Nobody told me I was smart. Nobody had to.

Class was boring, but I got straight As. It was excruciating listening to
other kids try to ask and answer questions because every goddamned thing they
struggled with was _so_ _fucking_ _easy_. It was fucking _horrible_. It didn't
change, all the way through high school.

Then I went to university, and I had a lifetime first: kids who knew things I
didn't. Kids who corrected me on mistakes... and they were right. Kids who
were as smart, or smarter than me.

For the first time in my life, getting graded on a curve meant I had to
fucking _work_ instead of just doing nothing and then blowing the curve for
everyone else.

I desperately wish I'd had that experience at a younger age. It would've been
awesome. But I didn't.

Gifted classes would've been great, but my school didn't have much of that.

The thing you're failing to understand is that the problem isn't that the kids
are told they're smart. It's that they're actually smart. Not telling them
doesn't change shit.

~~~
gozo
That's kind of part of the point. Kids who understand that they are relatively
smart become content with just being better than the other kids. Instead of
realizing that they also have to do other things that further learning like
more work by themselves or explaining things to their classmates etc.

------
baldfat
I was a "gifted" kid AKA they took my IQ score and put me in the program.
(Horrible way to figure that out). I got to go to special things on Saturdays
and take harder math classes in school. I totally sucked at spelling and still
do and this is a known issue with people with a "mathematical brain" AKA can't
spell to save my life but read at a high school level in 3rd grade and was
doing calculus in 9th grade.

My son (5 years ago) was tested to be "gifted" and after looking at the
program we said no.

1) They would move him to a totally different school in our district.

2) They used a different curriculum and class strategies.

3) Being an "4.0 Student" in undergrad I knew the pressure to stand out
besides the perfect scores. Kids would be worse.

4) We live in a dirty poor urban school district and I figured the "gift
program" was going to get cut. It did the next year and he would have been
right where he was anyways.

5) He had cancer and I kind of was mad that they would tell him these were his
options without talking to us first, because there were medical needs that a
local school afforded us (AKA we could run to school and give him his pain
meds if necessary)

Gifted doesn't mean separate because the one thing that people with different
brain strategies needs is the ability to figure out how to work with others.
If there is no others they are bound to have trouble later on.

~~~
Kluny
I hope your son beat cancer since then.

~~~
baldfat
Sadly he passed away from bone cancer (osteosarcoma) 2 years ago.

PS I usually say this so I can plead with people to help fund Pediatric Cancer
Research. Only 4% of US Federal Grants go to Peds Research. American Cancer
Society gives less than $0.02 per dollar for Peds Cancer Research. Adult
research has little to no impact for the kids. I 100% support St Baldricks and
Children’s Cancer Research Fund. We finally have our first Chemo in over 20
years this year for children because of St Baldrick's funded research!

~~~
caseysoftware
I'm so sorry for your loss. I lost a daughter for wholly different reasons but
the little I understand is more than I want.

I've heard great things about St Baldricks and I'm glad to know that their
work is doing some good. And thank you for supporting it for others.

------
daxfohl
Good for the OP. I, like many here, am an old child prodigy. Starting
fatherhood 2.5 years ago, I wanted "prodigy" status for my kids too. Lots of
ABC's and 123's in the last two years. Yet I'm already sensing that this is
the wrong direction.

Kids need fun and excitement to grow. They'll all eventually learn their ABC's
and far beyond. _How far_ beyond, though, is unrelated to how early they learn
their ABC's. Rather how confident and interested they are in what they're
doing. That, and genetics, which no amount of training will change. This seems
obvious when you let yourself step outside the education rat race for a
second.

And then going back to the "far beyond" ... _How_ far beyond _do we need to
get?_ I personally got to graduate level math and did well enough. Yet I'm
still mostly (and happily) writing web software that I could have done with a
high-school education or less. And working for (excellent) managers that were
not even close to being child prodigies.

We adults are the ones with the experience to know what is important, so why
do we warp this knowledge when we apply it to our kids?

~~~
contingencies
Same but 1.5 years fatherhood here. My wife and I chose earlier this year to
stay in China instead of migrating to Europe or Australia/New Zealand for our
daughter's early education. There seem to be a decent number of concerned
parents living here and we are collectively considering starting an
independent school to avoid the currently poor options (extreme creationist
Christian international school, Chinese primary schools) in a few years' time.
There is some interest in established alternative models (Montessori, etc.).
What struck me about the article was that they broke children in to groups
even within the high potential performance group, and that was dumb. Thinking
back to my own gifted/talented schooling experience in Australia, that never
happened... we were all exposed to exactly the same challenges and often
worked to overcome them as a group, which on the face of it seems a more
realistic/adult approach to learning and work.

------
brudgers
Forty years ago, I was bused across Fairfax County. Apart from a few kids in
the same swath of suburbs, my classmates were bused in from other parts. I
keep in touch with some of them via Facebook. They were amazing kids and are
for the most part amazing middle aged adults.

The striking difference between my experience and that described in the
article is that the educational structure of The Center was not competitive.
They were just normal elementary school classrooms other than the level of the
content. There are only two plausible reasons that I didn't experience the
idea that some kids were dumber than others, either it didn't happen or I was
the dumbest and the other kids were compassionate and kind.

Five year olds don't feel pressure to get into the best kindergarden. It's
some adult's bright idea to sanction eight year olds competing on spelling day
in and out. Once a year for the Scripps National Spelling Bee is plenty enough
if not too much. My son goes to school with children who don't get dinner if
they get a B on a math test and others whose parents have picked their majors
before middle school...in STEM of course.

Yet I think the the most awesome of my classmates from all those years ago are
an historian and a public school teacher.

 _Ducunt volentem fata nolentem trahunt._ Seneca.

~~~
contingencies
For others curious, Latin _Ducunt volentem fata nolentem trahunt._ means "Fate
leads the willing, and drags the unwilling".

------
savanaly
It seems like the optimal learning environment is one where you are

a) being taught at the speed and level that is at least in the ballpark of
your potential. The reason this is needed is obvious: if you are being taught
way beyond your capability you won't learn anything, and it's a disservice to
be taught way below your capability as well.

b) in the top 50% of your _local_ group of students, for self esteem reasons
and also because you'll start to feel like studying and working hard pays off
if you seem to be successful in school relative to your peers.

There's a real tradeoff between these two sometimes. Given two identical kids,
if you send one to the school that is not up to his "gifted" potential but he
is the smartest kid in his class he may well do better in the end than the one
you send to a gifted school but he is obviously at the bottom of his class.
The first will certainly be happier and perhaps learn the life lessons and
habits that will make him super successful in high school, college and beyond.

We can at least start to address a) with these gifted programs and special
education for the exceptionally challenged and so on. But addressing b) is
also important and the laws of statistics sort of prevent us dividing kids
into groups where everyone is above average for their group. In theoretical
terms I can envision some sort of frequent rotation system where you're
constantly shuffled from class to class so that one week you're top of your
class and another you're bottom. Perhaps that would even help illustrate to
kids the extremely hard to learn lesson that judging yourself against others
is fruitless and destructive.

~~~
jimbokun
"b) in the top 50% of your local group of students, for self esteem reasons
and also because you'll start to feel like studying and working hard pays off
if you seem to be successful in school relative to your peers."

So you want to grow up in Lake Wobegone.

[http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/g/garrisonke137097....](http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/g/garrisonke137097.html)

~~~
savanaly
Hah, Lake Wobegone was my old soc teacher's favorite thing to reference when
we were learning about middle income parents' attitudes to education. Anyways,
I'm very aware of it and that's why I mentioned it is a statistical
impossiblity to achieve b) with totally static classes.

------
cuckcuckspruce
> I will never forget the day I mentioned to another mother my concern about
> lack of empathy and kindness among the students, and she told me: “That’s
> not the school’s job.”

Is there nothing left that parents are meant to teach? Or is it all now the
school's job? If so, why don't we go full Spartan and take the kids away from
the parents right after they're born and have schools teach everything.

~~~
setpatchaddress
You have a group of 19-36 students at home, and the skills to teach positive
group dynamics? Lucky you.

"That's not the school's job" \-- so no one does it. Empathy is a learned
skill, and like all such skills, requires practice.

~~~
cuckcuckspruce
>You have a group of 19-36 students at home, and the skills to teach positive
group dynamics?

No, but I had friends and social interaction when I was a child, and this
social interaction also taught me empathy. It helped to have good, empathetic
role models at home too.

------
powertower
There is something very narcissistic about all that.

Basically, among gifted students, their child's position was in the middle of
the bell-curve. That is a natural thing when there are smarter kids around,
that are a better scoring group then your previous one.

The parents then go on to blame society and the school for not dedicating
significantly more resources towards their child, at the expense of the other
students.

The schools are not their to raise the child, that is the parents' job.

~~~
astazangasta
>The schools are not their to raise the child, that is the parents' job.

If primary education isn't child rearing, nothing is. Schools are absolutely
there to raise the child.

~~~
powertower
> If primary education isn't child rearing, nothing is. Schools are absolutely
> there to raise the child.

By that logic, what exactly is the parents job then?

~~~
jkyle
> By that logic, what exactly is the parents job then?

Why must only one person have a duty to raise a child? For most of human
history "it takes a village" was canon with regard to child rearing.

On most days of the week, a school is often responsible for the welfare of a
child for more hours of the day than the parent. Seven or eight hours of
school, several hours of after school activities.

How can you _not_ see this activity as child rearing?

~~~
ryanhuff
My wife is a primary school teacher, and she barely has time to get through
the mandated material. There is no time for "parenting" tasks, beyond basic
safety and welfare. And even if she did, the child's family's values are often
not in alignment with my wife's. More than once, simple discipline tools have
been challenged by parent to effectively remove any consequences for ill-
behavior by the student.

So while you may view the role of school as an extension of parenting, many
parents regularly stick their noses into the school environment to dictate
their own norms, and you cannot have one teacher "parenting" 30 different
ways.

~~~
jkyle
> she barely has time to get through the mandated material

My mother being a public school teacher for many decades, you'll get no
disagreement from me that teachers are over extended and under resourced.

> There is no time for "parenting" tasks, beyond basic safety and welfare.

Most of parenting is safety, welfare, and being a positive example.

> And even if she did, the child's family's values are often not in alignment
> with my wife's. More than once, simple discipline tools have been challenged
> by parent to effectively remove any consequences for ill-behavior by the
> student.

I'm not sure consensus is a requirement for parenting. Even within marriages,
consensus isn't guaranteed.

> So while you may view the role of school as an extension of parenting, many
> parents regularly stick their noses into the school environment to dictate
> their own norms, and you cannot have one teacher "parenting" 30 different
> ways.

I don't really see it as a view. Rather an observed fact. Whether they are
equipped to do it well or poorly with or without conflict are details about
the mode and quality with which they help raise a child rather. They rear our
children by virtue of being a primary authority figure and adult mentor for
most of their lives previous to adulthood.

"Parenting" is a bit of a nebulous term. Many don't think most parents do a
good job of parenting. But child rearing is unambiguous. The school system
undoubtedly rears our children.

------
kamaal
Make no mistakes this whole smart people/student/kid/employees kind of an
elite club makes a mediocre person out of many people.

If you are thinking this is limited to schools alone, you are wrong. What do
you think happens to all those employees at Google after they are made to go
through all that algorithm acrobatics. You may be listed as someone who aced
all interviews, has big grades on your mark sheet. But you will go there only
find your self to be another face in the crowd. Your promotions/growth/rewards
will come in a trickle. No matter how good you might actually be, you are no
special snowflake in a crowd like that. The net result is you will end up
demotivated, if not feeling bad about yourself.

Even a performance evaluation in situations like that will make you feel like
crap.

And it always happens that the 'low performers' in the group are always given
fewer of those plum opportunities. No matter how good you individually might
be, you will end up getting labelled as mediocre. And worse, you will be made
to believe that you are.

------
rm_-rf_slash
When I was in college I dated a girl whose parents were from Hong Kong and
whose father was by far the most overbearing human being I have ever met. His
determination that every one of his four children be successful drove them
into an insane flurry of work that has lasted for each of their 25 years -
until they each had their masters degree in biomedical engineering, as he
demanded.

I, on the other hand, grew up in a family of academics and was able to express
myself and make mistakes from time to time. Sometimes I wish I had been pushed
harder as a kid, but I think I turned out all right.

When I met the father he remarked at how well-spoken I was and lamented that
none of his children communicated as well as I did - the kind of skill that
cannot arise when your childhood and adolescence is confined to an
intellectually rigid model.

Creativity cannot be dictated.

------
ntrepid8
I got to go to a "gifted school" in 6th and 7th grade. The biggest difference
was that I didn't have to worry about my physical safety there. It's a lot
easier to focus on spelling when you aren't worried about getting punched in
the face.

------
simplyluke
I've seen a lot of pushback against gifted/talented programs over the past
year or two, and much of it is very valid. A gifted program starting in 6th
grade is the only reason I finished school. Having teachers that knew how to
teach to my personality type and learning style helped me discover a love for
math, computers, and education.

My district's gifted program was the single best thing that happened to my
education.

------
noamyoungerm
Gifted people always end up turning out average. Because they aren't special.
Nearly every school catering to the middle class and up has a 'gifted'
program. How many kids is that? Millions per grade. Everyone who passes
through that filter gets to think of themselves as a 'smart person'. In a
given K-12 grade, there are 60000 students in the 99th percentile (whatever
that means) _per criterion_.

But that's not enough - parents want to make sure their kid is special. The
kind that wins Nobel Prizes. We have to find some way to filter these million
above-average kids into a few hundred people who truly make a difference. So
maybe your next filter could be some competition. Being accepted to [0] means
you are in the top 1500 at doing a hobby science project. We have a long
series of K-12 filters (olympiads, languages, music, early university, chess,
etc.) and each one ends up with its own few (100-10000) best.

We want to set up our kid for success, but the only way we can have any sort
of prediction is by putting the kid through filter after filter after filter
and hoping they pass all of them. And if they pass the first three and not the
fourth? Then now you have to deal with the fact that our prediction says that
they will spend the rest of their life with a regular family and a regular job
rather than being something spectacular. And if they pass every test they
meet? Well there are 50 other people who matched the same set of tests as they
did. How do we select which 49 will end up being normal adults? And what if
the next Linus Torvalds ends up being someone who passed some of the filters,
but not all of them?

There is no predictor for success. Kids should be encouraged to try and prove
themselves, but only so long as they enjoy it so much they continue to choose
to pursue this during their own free time.

[0] [https://student.societyforscience.org/intel-
isef](https://student.societyforscience.org/intel-isef)

~~~
contingencies
_We have to find some way to filter these million above-average kids into a
few hundred people who truly make a difference._ ... or perhaps we need to
simply admit that aspects of life outside of formal education including blind
luck and chance may contribute overwhelmingly to these types of transformation
later in life. Success and life goals are relative, subjective, and frankly
optional anyway. There is an argument to be made for the notion that parents
and especially the state have no business over-defining these things for young
people, particularly given the rapidly changing nature of the global social
and technological landscape.

~~~
studentrob
> the state have no business over-defining these things for young people

Agreed. Hope you don't mind if I shoot the shit a little. You got me thinking.

The state sets a goal for us to make as much money as we can. It educates
towards that. Banks incentivize saving, and the system promises more money if
you make more money. When a country makes more money it can provide more for
its citizens. Military protection and domestic luxuries. It's up to us as
individuals to decide when we have done enough work, learned enough, or have
enough money. The state will never say you've done "enough". Banks won't, and
your parents won't either. They can't make that decision for you because
everyone's potential varies based on environmental factors. You must make that
decision yourself. And as individuals I believe none of us ever want to
underperform. Yet we also don't want to be super stressed. So we try some
stuff and see what sticks. What level of work and money allows us to move
forward and experience new things? It's a lifelong effort to find out. We
don't know for sure what we can or can't do tomorrow. Every day we have a
different set of variables and opportunities.

I'm not sure this is anything new

------
progressive_dad
My son has been attending a progressive school based on the lab school in
Chicago for the past two years. Its great in all the ways and for the reasons
listed in this article, but there is one major issue we've run into.

Progressive schools also attract a large number of children with behavioral
problems that have been forced out of all other schools. Most progressive
schools are tolerant to a fault and don't have the budget or people-power to
plan and prepare for these students. They need their own IEPs and in many
cases a para-professional in the classroom with them but their parents are
often LOATHE to cover the cost.

TL;DR progressive schools can be tolerant to a fault. Your kid will get hit
and screamed at and if they are more academic they will complain to you
constantly that their classroom is chaos.

------
ThomPete
A lot of the failure is actually on the parents here.

It's not that hard to get your child into schools for gifted children without
your child being especially gifted. Not saying it's easy but it's not really
about how gifted they are.

Here in NY a lot of parents push their kids and focus primarily on the skills
thats needed to get into these schools without the kids having a natural urge
to want to get into it. Lots of tutoring to get them to they point where they
can do it.

And so a lot of children have "read the book" but don't understand it so to
speak. And thats where the problem start.

~~~
antod
_> A lot of the failure is actually on the parents here._

That's the point they make in the article. Urging other parents not to fall
into the same mistakes they made, and how much better things are now having
corrected them.

------
lazyant
This reads as another instance of the "curse of the gifted" that many readers
here are familiar with and the standard advice is to praise effort not
intelligence.

The ideal condition for learning is when you are challenged and things are a
bit difficult; not too easy (you get bored) and not too hard (you get
discouraged).

------
elgenie
I guess the Peter Principle extends to elementary school too.

If schools are set up to underserve the bottom 1/3 to 1/2 of each class (be it
via pacing or competition), it doesn't make sense to work really hard to place
your kid in better-and-better schools until they're in that bottom third.

------
DoctorBit
So enjoying life is more important than "winning". Who knew?

------
morgante
Honestly, this sounds like a terribly selfish move. The OP consciously took
her son out of a bigger pond to put him into a smaller pool where he could
shine again.

This completely ignores the fact that probably the best way to learn is to be
surrounded by people more intelligent than yourself.

Speaking as someone who spent most of my childhood as "valedictorian" I would
have craved a competitive peer group much sooner, despite the blow to my self-
esteem which confrontation of my own fallibility created.

~~~
panglott
Moving their child to an environment where they develop a healthy, positive
attitude toward learning and outgrow a crippingly low self-esteem is "terribly
selfish"?

~~~
morgante
> Moving their child to an environment where they develop a healthy, positive
> attitude toward learning and outgrow a crippingly low self-esteem is
> "terribly selfish"?

Speaking as someone who spent years in a "normal" environment where I was
consistently at the top of the curve, I don't think it's necessarily the
healthiest learning position even if it benefits self-esteem. When you never
have to try to beat everyone else, you don't develop a lot of essential skills
and instead just have a growing ego.

------
marincounty
"As it turns out, gifted kids, defined as "high potential learners," can have
heightened awareness and anxiety, according to the National Association for
Gifted Children. Our son fit the bill. (He has worried about the meaning of
life since he was two years old. Seriously."

I was far from a gifted child. My first day of kindergarten, my mom dressed me
up in a like a minature businessman, equipped with a small brief case,
thermos, lunch box, and a rain coat. (Mom, I love you to pieces, and look back
with loving memories. Sorry guys had to say this.)

Back to kindergarten. I walked into that class room, looked at Miss Palmer.
Looked at the other children running around, and made a beehive to the little
wooden play house on the back of the room. I looked out of 6" X 6" window, and
my body tensed up, and I didn't want to leave that playhouse. I opened my
lunch case and started to drink my milk. My mother loving put ice cubes in an
cleaned, recycled peanut butter jar. I drank my milk, and came out of that
playhouse, with the iron fist of Miss Palmer. "Get out of there, or I'll pull
you out by your arm!"

I went to my seat, and hated the whole thing. I enjoyed the other kids, but
the adults at that school terrified me. I'm still leary of adults, and I'm an
adult. Crazy?

I remember being a nervous child. My school just made my anxieties worse.

My biggest fear was twice a month, the children would have to go up to a big
wooden calender, and put the date place card in the right spot. When it was my
turn, I knew the date, but when I was up on that counter, and everyone was
looking at me--I froze, and couldn't remember anything. I would take that
placard and move it around the board, like it was a Ouigi board. Even the kids
would take pity on me. They would yell, "To the right. Over there. Down. Up.".
After thirty one tries, I would finally complete the task. In order to help
me, Miss Palmer decided I would put the date up 2-3 times a week--so I would
get better. Well, I never got better.

I was so terrified of public speaking, or anyone watching me do anything, I
literally would ask my college professors, "Do you require any public speaking
in your class?". I got through college with only one sweaty, public speach.
It's possible, with a lot of planning.

As a child, I had a hard time learning. I can still see the concern on my
father's face when he was trying to teach me the numbers on the big black
rotary phone. I had some kind of learning disability? I just couldn't learn
the things the adults wanted me to learn. I just wanted to be outside playing,
and running around.

Even-though, I was not gifted, I do remember the worst day of my life. I was
five, or six? My parents were out, and I was alone in the house. (Just for a
little while. I could go to Donna's house if I needed anything.). I was
jumping on my parents bed. I got tired. I layed down. At that moment, I
realized my parents might die one day. I cried, and cried. I cried for hours,
or at least it seemed like hours. That was the beginning of my fear of death.
It went from my parents, to my own eventually demise.

My parents arrived, and I never took them for granted again. I hugged them
more. I grew up fearing for their safety. In Boy Scouts, I didn't want them to
go to the Jamboree; afraid they might get hurt. After all, these log
contraptions were put together by crazy adults, and stupid kids.

Back to my learning disability. I finally overcame it in second grade. I just
started to learn? I did really well up until high school. With every pore on
my face, and back clogged; the only thing I really cared about was girls,
sports, (actually nothing formal. Just knock down basketball games), and
socializing. It wasen't until my last year I got serious about school, but it
was too late. I did make up eveverything I missed in high school in two
semesters at a community college, and went on to get a four year degree, and a
year of graduate school.

So if you have a kid who's doing terrible in school, things do get better. If
you have a nervous, anxious kid, especially if that kid is the first born; I
was just about to give advise, but realized there's no advice. You don't want
to coddle them? You don't want to fix all their anxieties? In my case, I just
got better.

I became a high functioning, educated adult. I felt like I could do anything,
and was pretty successful.

I then had a nervous breakdown over--life? I really don't know what made me
bust a gasket. I got better from the breakdown, but I'm not a good as before.
I am still hanging on though, and not depressed. I just need to make more
money. The breakdown had no affect on my learning abilities, or interests. I'm
just not the same dude. I sometimes wonder if I would want to go back to my
old self. I honestly don't know.

Good luck with your kids, and hug them. Hug, or call your parents. I need to
get in touch with my brother, and sister, but we had a huge falling out over a
family matter. Yes, it was money, and it was ugly. I just can't forgive them
yet.

(Brother--if you are listening--I understand what you did. You needed the
money, and you had a kid on the way. I kinda get what you did. As to my sister
--you alwready had a multi million dollar shoe business. Two houses. Vacation
home in the desert, with a yurt in the backyard. New cars. Health insurance.
Good wine. Restaurant meals. I will never understand why you took all the
money. I have thought about it over the years, and I just don't get it. You
know your mother needed the money? I'm still helping out mom because she can't
afford anything. And, you knew I needed the money? You took that expensive
sports car, and let your oldest boy drive it around town, like it was a
commuter car? I kills me on so many levels, and it will be stolen. Yea, dad
was an angry man, but you didn't need to capitalize on a bad situation? Maybe,
one day, I can forgive?"

Sorry people--this went to therapy too quick. I know this is not the place.
Won't do it again.

------
hugh4
Couldn't cut it, dropped out, parents wrote sour-grapes article, the system
works.

~~~
coldtea
Summary that misses the whole point of the article, meant to make author feel
superior.

~~~
hugh4
The situation is one that you would expect to lead to sour grapes. The
criticism of the school is rather nebulous. Can we at least say that sour
grapes does appear to be a strong factor?

~~~
coldtea
I think the main criticism leveled at the school is its failing to take into
account their kid's needs and emotions -- and while it's based on their own
pain points and their kid's failing (which we could call "sour grapes"), the
same approach would lea the school to fail any kid in the same situation.

What I took from the article is that instead of those "gifted kids" being
given extra care, the children are only given extra curriculum to cover. I'd
expect both -- since kids being really bright can be very brittle,
antagonistic, alienated etc, and a special school should be expected to take
that into account to and help alleviate it.

So, while I could subscribe to "sour grapes", my main issue with labeling it
as that is that I don't agree with the moral accusation it tags along with it.
As in: I think they are justified to feel "sour grapes".

