Do gifted students need special education services and/or special schools to meet their specific educational needs?

[HanSolo]

My daughter has been “identified as gifted in reading” for the last three years. I sign a paper and nothing is different as far as I have ascertained with her curriculum.

[Pjmm]

You clearly misunderstood my point. Prioritizing high performing students should be the goal of first world countries. Especially every first world country that stalled their economy in the interest of public health. If we are always looking to advance social interests as a whole, we do that by supporting our best and best and brightest, and making sure everyone else has very basic sills, no?

*smiles* I don't want to sound like a know-it-all,so if my replies are annoying, by all means, feel free to tell me to shut it, it's ok.

I will say, I do get my feathers ruffled when you imply it's a waste to spend money on one of my child just because he won't become Einstein, but since the other is of value due to his high IQ, society should invest. I don't think that is the way to build a compassionate and successful society. But I digress.

I do not believe I am misunderstanding your theory. You think the budget should focus more funds on the best and brightest, like those that qualify for gifted programs, right?

I LOVE psychology books & I read a lot of research about learning & success due to my unique children's strengths & challenges. Time and time again the study and book authors highlight, the majority of leaders and great minds in America that become CEO's, political leaders, top researchers, professors are not the 130+ high IQ gifted kids all grown up. They are the above average, but not brilliant, kid that grows up, that would not have even qualified for the gifted program.

Arthur Jensen suggests that an IQ up to 115 is beneficial, and after that there is no benefit in terms to success, after that number you have to count on EQ, social skills, grit, purposeful practice etc. And that is where in my opinion, you need to focus funding on all student, to assure that society helps develop all talent in all, and not just focus on the top 3-5% -- all people who are capable of creativity, leadership, etc.

Truth be told, there are SO MANY private donors and programs for the gifted population, I feel we do invest A LOT in them.

I’m not suggesting we spend more on gifted students. I’m suggesting we don’t spend the lion’s share of public education funding on kids that aren’t likely to achieve much. While it’s a controversial idea, it’s not a new one.

If your children have specific needs, why can’t you fund them? Why is it so outrageous for society to decide that we should spend $x a year to fund public school students, and that any extra should be funded by the parents or public funds you need to separately apply for?

Because funding a sn kid who could hold a job someday even if it's a cashier at a store is less expensive than him or her ending up in the prison system or the institution. That's well known. Assuming institutions even exist anymore. The prison system is the new mental health system. And a lot of sn people end up there. Don't we want to avoid that? Look at it this way. You're investing in society's future. These people will give back. And Idk the numbers. But I bet what we spend on education for sn kids is nothing compared to say.. the auto company's bailout in 2008 or whenever it was. Our defense budget. Whatever it costs when the president goes somewhere over his time in office. Now yes there are kids who will never hold a job. But if the schools can help teach basic skills it frees the parents to hold jobs. And the more skills these kids learn the easier it is to place them in group homes if needed. Also society determined this is a moral thing to do as well as in our best interests. To raise an average child to 18 I read costs around 250,000 dollars. A sn child is far more. I doubt few can be prepared for that.

[Anonymous 1]

*smiles* I don't want to sound like a know-it-all,so if my replies are annoying, by all means, feel free to tell me to shut it, it's ok.

I will say, I do get my feathers ruffled when you imply it's a waste to spend money on one of my child just because he won't become Einstein, but since the other is of value due to his high IQ, society should invest. I don't think that is the way to build a compassionate and successful society. But I digress.

I do not believe I am misunderstanding your theory. You think the budget should focus more funds on the best and brightest, like those that qualify for gifted programs, right?

I LOVE psychology books & I read a lot of research about learning & success due to my unique children's strengths & challenges. Time and time again the study and book authors highlight, the majority of leaders and great minds in America that become CEO's, political leaders, top researchers, professors are not the 130+ high IQ gifted kids all grown up. They are the above average, but not brilliant, kid that grows up, that would not have even qualified for the gifted program.

Arthur Jensen suggests that an IQ up to 115 is beneficial, and after that there is no benefit in terms to success, after that number you have to count on EQ, social skills, grit, purposeful practice etc. And that is where in my opinion, you need to focus funding on all student, to assure that society helps develop all talent in all, and not just focus on the top 3-5% -- all people who are capable of creativity, leadership, etc.

Truth be told, there are SO MANY private donors and programs for the gifted population, I feel we do invest A LOT in them.

I’m not suggesting we spend more on gifted students. I’m suggesting we don’t spend the lion’s share of public education funding on kids that aren’t likely to achieve much. While it’s a controversial idea, it’s not a new one.

If your children have specific needs, why can’t you fund them? Why is it so outrageous for society to decide that we should spend $x a year to fund public school students, and that any extra should be funded by the parents or public funds you need to separately apply for?

Because funding a sn kid who could hold a job someday even if it's a cashier at a store is less expensive than him or her ending up in the prison system or the institution. That's well known. Assuming institutions even exist anymore. The prison system is the new mental health system. And a lot of sn people end up there. Don't we want to avoid that? Look at it this way. You're investing in society's future. These people will give back. And Idk the numbers. But I bet what we spend on education for sn kids is nothing compared to say.. the auto company's bailout in 2008 or whenever it was. Our defense budget. Whatever it costs when the president goes somewhere over his time in office. Now yes there are kids who will never hold a job. But if the schools can help teach basic skills it frees the parents to hold jobs. And the more skills these kids learn the easier it is to place them in group homes if needed. Also society determined this is a moral thing to do as well as in our best interests. To raise an average child to 18 I read costs around 250,000 dollars. A sn child is far more. I doubt few can be prepared for that.

Why are you offended that I’m suggesting parents have a financial responsibility to their own children? It isn’t in the best interests of society for an average student to receive less funding for his education than a special needs student. You can tell me it is all day long, but that doesn’t make your opinion a fact.

[Anonymous 3]

I’m not suggesting we spend more on gifted students. I’m suggesting we don’t spend the lion’s share of public education funding on kids that aren’t likely to achieve much. While it’s a controversial idea, it’s not a new one.

If your children have specific needs, why can’t you fund them? Why is it so outrageous for society to decide that we should spend $x a year to fund public school students, and that any extra should be funded by the parents or public funds you need to separately apply for?

Because funding a sn kid who could hold a job someday even if it's a cashier at a store is less expensive than him or her ending up in the prison system or the institution. That's well known. Assuming institutions even exist anymore. The prison system is the new mental health system. And a lot of sn people end up there. Don't we want to avoid that? Look at it this way. You're investing in society's future. These people will give back. And Idk the numbers. But I bet what we spend on education for sn kids is nothing compared to say.. the auto company's bailout in 2008 or whenever it was. Our defense budget. Whatever it costs when the president goes somewhere over his time in office. Now yes there are kids who will never hold a job. But if the schools can help teach basic skills it frees the parents to hold jobs. And the more skills these kids learn the easier it is to place them in group homes if needed. Also society determined this is a moral thing to do as well as in our best interests. To raise an average child to 18 I read costs around 250,000 dollars. A sn child is far more. I doubt few can be prepared for that.

Why are you offended that I’m suggesting parents have a financial responsibility to their own children? It isn’t in the best interests of society for an average student to receive less funding for his education than a special needs student. You can tell me it is all day long, but that doesn’t make your opinion a fact.

I don't think you realize that we are already spending a ton on various doctors, psychiatrists, therapies, medications, etc, etc, etc... We are already financially responsible. If having an education is "mandatory" for everyone then provide it. I'm already paying taxes for the school system so why shouldn't my kids needs be taken care of?

[Anonymous 1]

Because funding a sn kid who could hold a job someday even if it's a cashier at a store is less expensive than him or her ending up in the prison system or the institution. That's well known. Assuming institutions even exist anymore. The prison system is the new mental health system. And a lot of sn people end up there. Don't we want to avoid that? Look at it this way. You're investing in society's future. These people will give back. And Idk the numbers. But I bet what we spend on education for sn kids is nothing compared to say.. the auto company's bailout in 2008 or whenever it was. Our defense budget. Whatever it costs when the president goes somewhere over his time in office. Now yes there are kids who will never hold a job. But if the schools can help teach basic skills it frees the parents to hold jobs. And the more skills these kids learn the easier it is to place them in group homes if needed. Also society determined this is a moral thing to do as well as in our best interests. To raise an average child to 18 I read costs around 250,000 dollars. A sn child is far more. I doubt few can be prepared for that.

Why are you offended that I’m suggesting parents have a financial responsibility to their own children? It isn’t in the best interests of society for an average student to receive less funding for his education than a special needs student. You can tell me it is all day long, but that doesn’t make your opinion a fact.

I don't think you realize that we are already spending a ton on various doctors, psychiatrists, therapies, medications, etc, etc, etc... We are already financially responsible. If having an education is "mandatory" for everyone then provide it. I'm already paying taxes for the school system so why shouldn't my kids needs be taken care of?

Because your children are not any more important than any other child at their school. Lower income school districts can’t afford to properly educate most kids because so much of their funding is going to accommodating special needs children.

In higher income / good school districts, some parents actually spend tens of thousands of dollars suing the school district to send their child to special needs schools with $100k plus annual tuition and WIN. It’s absolute insanity, especially in the situations where the parents could afford to devote more financial resources to their kids.

[Anonymous 3]

Why are you offended that I’m suggesting parents have a financial responsibility to their own children? It isn’t in the best interests of society for an average student to receive less funding for his education than a special needs student. You can tell me it is all day long, but that doesn’t make your opinion a fact.

I don't think you realize that we are already spending a ton on various doctors, psychiatrists, therapies, medications, etc, etc, etc... We are already financially responsible. If having an education is "mandatory" for everyone then provide it. I'm already paying taxes for the school system so why shouldn't my kids needs be taken care of?

Because your children are not any more important than any other child at their school. Lower income school districts can’t afford to properly educate most kids because so much of their funding is going to accommodating special needs children.

In higher income / good school districts, some parents actually spend tens of thousands of dollars suing the school district to send their child to special needs schools with $100k plus annual tuition and WIN. It’s absolute insanity, especially in the situations where the parents could afford to devote more financial resources to their kids.

No, they are not any more important, but neither are they any less deserving to get an education.

[mommy_jules]

I’m not sure. In my experience, there’s isn’t much to the gifted program in schools, so I don’t really know what benefit they actually provide to the children who qualified for it. In a perfect world, every child should have a more individualized learning experience.

[Pjmm]

I’m not suggesting we spend more on gifted students. I’m suggesting we don’t spend the lion’s share of public education funding on kids that aren’t likely to achieve much. While it’s a controversial idea, it’s not a new one.

If your children have specific needs, why can’t you fund them? Why is it so outrageous for society to decide that we should spend $x a year to fund public school students, and that any extra should be funded by the parents or public funds you need to separately apply for?

Because funding a sn kid who could hold a job someday even if it's a cashier at a store is less expensive than him or her ending up in the prison system or the institution. That's well known. Assuming institutions even exist anymore. The prison system is the new mental health system. And a lot of sn people end up there. Don't we want to avoid that? Look at it this way. You're investing in society's future. These people will give back. And Idk the numbers. But I bet what we spend on education for sn kids is nothing compared to say.. the auto company's bailout in 2008 or whenever it was. Our defense budget. Whatever it costs when the president goes somewhere over his time in office. Now yes there are kids who will never hold a job. But if the schools can help teach basic skills it frees the parents to hold jobs. And the more skills these kids learn the easier it is to place them in group homes if needed. Also society determined this is a moral thing to do as well as in our best interests. To raise an average child to 18 I read costs around 250,000 dollars. A sn child is far more. I doubt few can be prepared for that.

Why are you offended that I’m suggesting parents have a financial responsibility to their own children? It isn’t in the best interests of society for an average student to receive less funding for his education than a special needs student. You can tell me it is all day long, but that doesn’t make your opinion a fact.

I'm not offended. And btw the schools don't cover everything. If they can they bill or outsource to providers that bill Medicaid or private insurance. I pay for my son's counseling for example, some of his testing for learning disabilities. Or the facility that tests bills my insurance. It's not the school that pays. If anything bothered me it was your comment about paying attention to the best and the brightest. But IQ as others have pointed out doesn't mean everything. One might ask if you have a gifted child why not pay for his or hers extracurricular classes? Why not pay for private school for them?

As far as sn or students that need extra help- and here I'm talking kids with dyslexia or other learning disabilities that necessitate an IEP- what do you want to do? Pay extra now or see them end up like someone I know did. A high school dropout and felon. His parents either didn't know or couldn't afford special tutoring for him. So yes the parents should hold financial responsibility. But if they can't or won't then we ignore these children at our peril.

[Anonymous 4]

I think they need special classes or regular enrichment. Mine would have died of boredom in elementary and middle school without the excellent GT program in the district.

[PoplarGrove]

Although I greatly appreciate the time & attention of his IEP, my child with high abilities, he does not "need" special educational services, in the same manner than his younger brother who has a learning disability needs special education services. The former is helpful & entertaining. The latter is a matter of independence vs. being dependent life-long.

So if the funding if available, I am support IEPs for gifted students, however, I am actually against special schools for gifted individuals, as following social norms & high EQ is actually a better predictor of success in society, over IQ. They learn this when they are mainstreamed with people who think differently than they do.

Many gifted children do need special education services. Children who are gifted are often behind their peers emotionally and have difficulty understanding societal mores and physical cues that "normal" children learn through socialization. My daughter spent many years having to learn how to make small chat. She was incapable of interpreting facial expressions or tone and had to be taught how to do it. She was (still is) extremely literal and everything is black and white. Her therapist told me that highly gifted children often have many of the same traits as autistic children but because of their high intelligence they aren't given the help they should be given.