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

[Hot4Tchr-Bieg]

I would likely have a different view if I did not have a child who truly NEEDS an IEP for survival in the world of school. My definition of "need" is likely different that people than have only typical & then gifted children.

I would argue any child that has a 130+ IQ, that cannot succeed in a gen ed setting, is not gifted, but rather twice exceptional, obviously having other difficulties impeding their learning & social skills, be it behavior or temperament challenges. So perhaps it is a need in their case.

Gifted children have so many programs, such as DUKE TIPS and typically many local camps & activities that cater to them & their gifts and challenge them. My child could and has actually written his own learning goals & how to implement in a traditional gen ed classroom if need be, as well.

Yeah...see I agree that a large number of high IQ students who cannot succeed in Gen Ed may be twice exceptional, particularly with ADHD or Autism, but not all of them. It is a known difference that gifted students may need an alternative presentation of material, particularly in the elementary levels. You can't introduce a new topic in the science textbook for 30 minutes and then expect these kids to close the book and transition to paying attention to a math lesson. Once you ignite a curiosity...they may need a week to work through that! And it makes them mad or causes anxiety when you interrupt the process. It also makes them mad or causes anxiety when they have these curiosities but cannot communicate or organize them. They can be easily turned off of education at early ages when we expect from them what they cannot deliver.

It's a whole weird thing. I suppose they could invent a new name for what I'm describing, thus creating a new exceptionality. But the fact is that we had a name for it...it was "gifted." Alas, somewhere along the way, the name was hijacked by parents of children who simply benefit from acceleration or enrichment.

But how is that different than any other student? Typical students have passions too?

To play devil's advocate, why would my DS, who has been blessed with even more talents to be able to work on things in after school camps or at home, deserve special treatment at that moment compared to kids that need more assistance?

Typical students absolutely can have passions too. (That's a nice flip side to my common insistence that you don't have to be a genius to be bored in school.) The difference is that for some it may be a preference but for others it is a genuine need. Some gifted students really cannot function and learn in a typical classroom. And it's not a question of material going too slowly or them not being "challenged" (Fun fact...not everyone enjoys a challenge.) They really do need an alternative curriculum/presentation and system of support.

[Pjmm]

You can choose to financially prioritize one of your children over another, but that doesn’t mean that that’s the best result for society. In Europe, children are put on tracks in schools based on their abilities. That’s a much more pragmatic approach than spending 3 times the amount of money on a child that’s never going to become Einstein than a truly brilliant person that has the ability to achieve great things.

Yet, research does not support your theory at all. Gifted programs do not make great scientists, Nobel prize winners or grand political leaders. I did A LOT of research before I allowed my DS to get tested. They don't seem to harm students, they may help a bit with scholarships, but students from gifted programs are not anymore successful.

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?

Are you talking Brave New World here?
The best and the brightest can burn out. The average student can go on to do well once they find their interests and joy. It's like I told ods because he was acting superior. Grades do matter if you're trying to get scholarships and a good college. I'm proud he achieved them. But a C student can be intelligent and have their motivation lie elsewhere. Shouldn't they be encouraged as well? I mean wasn't Bill Gates a college dropout? Didn't Edison struggle in school? Danny Thomas didn't even finish high school. You never know these things.

[Valentina327]

Maybe different curriculum. Something with more challenge or extra work to hold their interest.

[LiveWhatULove]

You can choose to financially prioritize one of your children over another, but that doesn’t mean that that’s the best result for society. In Europe, children are put on tracks in schools based on their abilities. That’s a much more pragmatic approach than spending 3 times the amount of money on a child that’s never going to become Einstein than a truly brilliant person that has the ability to achieve great things.

Yet, research does not support your theory at all. Gifted programs do not make great scientists, Nobel prize winners or grand political leaders. I did A LOT of research before I allowed my DS to get tested. They don't seem to harm students, they may help a bit with scholarships, but students from gifted programs are not anymore successful.

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.

[LiveWhatULove]

Yeah...see I agree that a large number of high IQ students who cannot succeed in Gen Ed may be twice exceptional, particularly with ADHD or Autism, but not all of them. It is a known difference that gifted students may need an alternative presentation of material, particularly in the elementary levels. You can't introduce a new topic in the science textbook for 30 minutes and then expect these kids to close the book and transition to paying attention to a math lesson. Once you ignite a curiosity...they may need a week to work through that! And it makes them mad or causes anxiety when you interrupt the process. It also makes them mad or causes anxiety when they have these curiosities but cannot communicate or organize them. They can be easily turned off of education at early ages when we expect from them what they cannot deliver.

It's a whole weird thing. I suppose they could invent a new name for what I'm describing, thus creating a new exceptionality. But the fact is that we had a name for it...it was "gifted." Alas, somewhere along the way, the name was hijacked by parents of children who simply benefit from acceleration or enrichment.

But how is that different than any other student? Typical students have passions too?

To play devil's advocate, why would my DS, who has been blessed with even more talents to be able to work on things in after school camps or at home, deserve special treatment at that moment compared to kids that need more assistance?

Typical students absolutely can have passions too. (That's a nice flip side to my common insistence that you don't have to be a genius to be bored in school.) The difference is that for some it may be a preference but for others it is a genuine need. Some gifted students really cannot function and learn in a typical classroom. And it's not a question of material going too slowly or them not being "challenged" (Fun fact...not everyone enjoys a challenge.) They really do need an alternative curriculum/presentation and system of support.

To me it still sounds as though, they have some other learning or behavior disability if they can't hack the typical classroom. Because in my mind, advanced math, problem solving, logic, reasoning, reading, comprehension, spatial skills, creativity, vocabulary etc. skills should not make it impossible to function in a typical classroom. But I guess what you are saying, is they just wouldn't have anything to learn?

I do not understand giftedness enough, so I will leave it to you professional secondary school educators! Have fun figuring it out, LOL!!

[Msprekteacher]

We didn’t initiate it, his teacher requested that he be tested. We had no idea this was even a consideration until we got a letter in the mail that we both had to sign giving permission for the testing to be administered.

Like all parents you think your kid is a genius, and while he was and continues to get marks in the 95+ range we didn’t think much of it in 1st grade. To be honest, I was shocked. I have a learning disability, while his Dad took AP classes through out school. So, while I was sure neither boy would wear a dunce cap I never expected our first to be labeled gifted at 7 either.

Classes yes, special school locations no.

My oldest tested gifted last year. While in school he is pulled for several hours a day along with 3 other classmates to meet their advanced needs. Now with remote learning he is given the same materials as every other second grader and is blowing through it in less than 30 minutes.

Did you have him tested as part of an overall evaluation? Was he having difficulty functioning before his pullout services began?

[carterscutie85]

My son may very well test into the gifted program for next year. If he does and school resumes, he will be bussed to the high school in the mornings and have his regular class in the afternoon. I would not allow him to move up a grade or even go to a special school all day long because he is absolutely not mature enough. I think classes are just fine for gifted kids, they don't need a whole school.

Now for special ed kids, it depends on their needs. There are some schools here for medically fragile kids who often have SN. They do need their own school because if they are medically fragile they are likely immune compromised and shouldn't be with a ton of kids. But barring that I think classes are just fine for SN kids too.

[Msprekteacher]

This is my son! Even at a young age he would become obsessed with a topic and run with it to the the delusion of all else! We took him to DC when he was in kindergarten and he became OBSESSED with learning everything he could about Abraham Lincoln! He even made a White House 3D puzzle to take to school. Every art project, every free play was about that topic.

Sorry quoted wrong comment!!!

That's very interesting...there is a population of high IQ students who cannot be successful in the general ed setting and actually do "need" an alternative setting. You're the first person I've spoken with who has come right out and said that their high ability child does not need gifted classes

I would likely have a different view if I did not have a child who truly NEEDS an IEP for survival in the world of school. My definition of "need" is likely different that people than have only typical & then gifted children.

I would argue any child that has a 130+ IQ, that cannot succeed in a gen ed setting, is not gifted, but rather twice exceptional, obviously having other difficulties impeding their learning & social skills, be it behavior or temperament challenges. So perhaps it is a need in their case.

Gifted children have so many programs, such as DUKE TIPS and typically many local camps & activities that cater to them & their gifts and challenge them. My child could and has actually written his own learning goals & how to implement in a traditional gen ed classroom if need be, as well.

Yeah...see I agree that a large number of high IQ students who cannot succeed in Gen Ed may be twice exceptional, particularly with ADHD or Autism, but not all of them. It is a known difference that gifted students may need an alternative presentation of material, particularly in the elementary levels. You can't introduce a new topic in the science textbook for 30 minutes and then expect these kids to close the book and transition to paying attention to a math lesson. Once you ignite a curiosity...they may need a week to work through that! And it makes them mad or causes anxiety when you interrupt the process. It also makes them mad or causes anxiety when they have these curiosities but cannot communicate or organize them. They can be easily turned off of education at early ages when we expect from them what they cannot deliver.

It's a whole weird thing. I suppose they could invent a new name for what I'm describing, thus creating a new exceptionality. But the fact is that we had a name for it...it was "gifted." Alas, somewhere along the way, the name was hijacked by parents of children who simply benefit from acceleration or enrichment.

[Anonymous 1]

Yet, research does not support your theory at all. Gifted programs do not make great scientists, Nobel prize winners or grand political leaders. I did A LOT of research before I allowed my DS to get tested. They don't seem to harm students, they may help a bit with scholarships, but students from gifted programs are not anymore successful.

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?

[Anonymous 2]

I guess it depends on how gifted they are. My 7th grader is about a grade and a half above her classmates so she was doing the required 7th grade work with AP classes, 8th grade work and some 9th grade work last year. next year she will be doing the required 8th grade work and some high School classes. She tested gifted/advanced in school in about 2nd grade and thankfully her teachers were able to give the work they she needed and challenged her. My 3rd grader tested gifted/advanced at the kindergarten assessment (different school than my oldest) and was placed in a class that had kindergarten and 1st grade she was doing the required k work and the 1st grade work. Her 2nd grade teacher did not give her advanced until the end of the school year after fighting all year with her. This year her teacher was great and gave her work on her level and she went to the gifted class for an hour with a few other classmates. Next year and 5th grade we are looking very forward to! That team of teachers is amazing