In 3rd grade, my mother went in for a parent-teacher conference, and my teacher (who was a complete asshole) gave me terrible marks on behavior, but then said I was great at math. She literally said “whenever I have a math problem or something I don’t understand, I always ask Michael.”
My mom nearly fell out of her chair. What 3rd grade teacher has 3rd grade math problems they need a 3rd grader’s help with?!
My mom got me a math tutor literally the next day, and I’ve never been more thankful (in hindsight). That tutor focused on teaching me advanced math (for my age), and suddenly my behavior improved. Funny that.
So my recommendation would be, if possible, find a math tutor for enrichment. I don’t mean “start studying for the SAT,” so hopefully don’t take it that way. :)
It was a lifesaver. I went through it. I remember, distinctly, going from 'why am I here with all these other kids who just want to stare at the wall or play with G.I. Joes or stack rings' to an immense sense of relief when there was a bit more structure, a bit more freedom to choose what to do, etc.
But more importantly, when I wanted to understand or ask about some existential question, my teacher didn't say "oh that's cute kid, don't worry about it, just go be a kid and play with your friends." They took me seriously, chatted with me through my questions, and treated me like I wasn't a complete idiot, even though I was a child. That made all the difference.
And even more importantly, asking those questions didn't make me a pariah; instead, the other kids had those questions too, and we all learned from each other and grew.
If this sounds a bit absurd, I assure you I knew it then; I literally wrote about it in my journal in second grade.
Oh, I agree that at some age most kids can learn most things.
What we’re talking about is learning some things much earlier than peers, and not all kids can do that; there are some kids who are simply accelerated in terms of learning, and if “unfed” that drive can quickly die.
i think we're on the same page there. my general thought is that all kids are capable of learning about different ways of thinking, which is what gifted education is all about. at what age level is a different issue.
from my memory, my mom taught units on photography, civil rights history, problem solving, reasoning, creative writing, deconstructing things to make something new, etc. i think most, if not all, students are able to grasp those things, though maybe that's my bias as somebody who got that sort of teaching both at home and in public school. sadly, all the non-gifted students only got the rote lessons that prepared them for standardized testing, but i suspect average students would maybe enjoy more school more if they had a more gifted-like education. gifted kids aren't the only ones who get bored by school.
> I see friends' kids who read at 4 and they absolutely do not need to be stuck in a class with kids who still chew on their toys.
Its worse than that; putting them in that class forces them into a situation where their only options are abject boredom (which kills motivation, drive, creativity) or to act out, because it is at least better than being bored.
Honestly, boredom is the best case scenario. I had a class full of kids, who actively snuffed out any indication that someone might learn something. Some of the motivation was quite literally kicked out of you.
Yes, but it's the furthest left that is for cutting gifted and talented programs, by and large. So while not all of the left wants to, the left left does.
i don’t think this is true at all. if anything the people i know with far-left tendencies want significantly more funding for school programs, including gifted.
what makes me question what you’re saying even more is i have right-wing friends who most certainly do not want more funding for any school programs, including gifted. and i have classical liberal friends who think we should give tax breaks for private schools for “gifted”.
It's so sad to see such vehement energetic invented madness. Pure fabrication & delusion, and there's such a massive podcaster and regular media system pumping out false idols to flail against.
I suspect your right wing friends would agree if you said “society should focus additional resources developing people who are naturally gifted.” If you frame it in terms of “school funding,” what you’re actually measuring is their beliefs about whether school funds actually reach the kids they’re supposed to help.
> i have right-wing friends who most certainly do not want more funding for any school programs, including gifted
This is a strawman, though it may not seem like one. I agree that much of the right wants less funding for public education in general, and/or wants more funding for parochial schools and the like. But that is not who I'm talking about.
Those on the right who support public education also support funding gifted/talented schools/programs, because they base it on 'merit' and you may have seen that word thrown around recently by that orange guy. G&T programs explicity fit into their policy and world view, albeit for all the wrong reasons.
> i have classical liberal friends who think we should give tax breaks for private schools for “gifted”.
Cool, but they're not 'left' by the American standards. Classical liberals are more akin to American libertarians in terms of beliefs/opinions. Which again, is not who I'm talking about.
Most public school districts in America spend north of $20,000 per student per year. That’s $400,000 a year for a classroom of 20 students.
Anyone who thinks money is the limiting factor in education is either delusional or is receiving a chunk of that money that never makes it into the classroom.
Countries all over the planet provide superior education to students for a tenth of the cost.
Your right wing friends are correctly but ambiguously stating that if we can’t have a gifted program at these funding levels, there will never be a gifted program at any funding level.
The kids who aren't falling behind but are bored often eventually fall behind, because they did not have enough opportunities to grow and explore.
It's not only those who are failing that need help. (And I agree they shouldn't be treated as defects)
But gifted kids do exist, and they have all sorts of existential questions and concerns that other kids don't tend to worry themselves about. Unaddressed, these kids end up miserable, depressed, and anxious... which is why it's important to pay attention to them too.
Whether Kindergarten is the right age is a different question, but to imply that only those failing need help is simply untrue.
Individualized education would be ideal, but close to impossible, for obvious reasons.
My mom nearly fell out of her chair. What 3rd grade teacher has 3rd grade math problems they need a 3rd grader’s help with?!
My mom got me a math tutor literally the next day, and I’ve never been more thankful (in hindsight). That tutor focused on teaching me advanced math (for my age), and suddenly my behavior improved. Funny that.
So my recommendation would be, if possible, find a math tutor for enrichment. I don’t mean “start studying for the SAT,” so hopefully don’t take it that way. :)