[HPFGU-OTChatter] Gifted children

[Shaun Hately]

> *sighs* who am I to argue against "years of experience here, personal knowledge 
> of over 50 cases, detailed knowledge of another 200 cases, and an intimate 
> knowledge of 60 years of research"...ah, someone who doesn't know when to quit, > you say?  Oh well, there's definitely an argument for that.  But I stand by the 
> opinions I expressed earlier. 

Heh - never be afraid to argue with someone if you think you're right. I doubt you 
need that piece of advice but it important.

But please do understand that I have had to see a lot of pain with these kids. I've 
had to endure the misery that can develop when school isn't meeting their needs, 
when they find it impossible to make friends, when they are abused by teachers for 
not fitting into the teacher's neat little boxes... what I advocate is based on solid 
research, and also on personal experience of what I have seen work, and how I 
have seen it work. And I've also been there when a kid has finally got what they 
need, and they start to be happy again. And I've been there with kids who got what 
they needed from the start, and have never had to be miserable because of their 
schooling.

I don't advocate these practices unless I know they work. Unless I know that (1) 
there is a solid body of research evidence to back them up, (2) that there is no 
significant level of evidence to oppose the, and (3) that I have seen them in action, 
working, and improving the lives of kids. 

> Shaun:
> >What research has shown - and I've seen it personally in over 50 cases, with only 1 
> >exception - is that the type of cruelty you describe is only likely if there is a less than 
> >two year age gap between the older kids and the younger one. If the gap is larger 
> >than that, cruelty is exceedingly rare.
> 
> Exactly.  Kids that are that much older than a given gifted child are unlikely to be cruel to him/her.  
> 
> But they will *never* look at that child as an equal or a peer -- even if they are friends with him or her.  

Some do - and you only need a couple in a class to give a child peers, when they 
may have never had them before.

> And that, IMO, is almost worse than the "cruelty" you were speaking of.  In 
> actuality, this type of treatment, although neither hostile nor intentionally harmful, > will make a kid feel just as alienated as they had with less "mature" kids of their 
> same age.  And don't think a gifted kid in this position wouldn't notice that his 
> friends don't quite treat/see him the same way they do each other.  Children, 
> whether gifted or not, generally are *allot* more aware than most adults will give 
> them credit for.

The thing is, profoundly gifted kids only very rarely have kids they relate to as peers 
in regular aged-based classes. About 5% of PG kids will find any type of peer 
relationship in a chronological age based class. Other kids do not "look at that child 
as an equal or peer" in aged based classes - not when the child is PG, not in 19 out 
of 20 cases. If you regard having peers as important - and I do - then it has to be 
accepted that these kids generally shouldn't be in aged based classes.

When they are radically accelerated, between 60 and 80% find at least one 'peer' in 
a class. The odds are much higher in their favour. Now the peer relationship 
sometimes (a little less than half the time) is somewhat different from a typical one. 
It can be true that the child can notice that "his friends don't quite treat/see him the 
same way they do each other."

But faced with a 60% chance of any type of peer relationship and friendship, versus 
a 5% chance of the same (because the fact is the "friends don't quite treat/see him 
the same way they do each other" is a problem that could occur in the aged based 
class as well), it's pretty clear what the better choice is. Not the perfect choice - but 
we rarely have perfect choices. We have to go with what is best.

> Shaun:
> >Well, no, it doesn't - older, as a general rule, does mean more mature (the two 
> >terms are synonyms) but there are exceptions.
> 
> *big sigh* Honestly.  Of *course* "mature" is a synonym for "older" in a literal 
> context.
> 
> When comparing the *emotional* maturity of kids around 8 yrs. old and kids 
> around 12 yrs. old, however, the biggest difference you are going to find is the 
> awareness of sex.

In general yes. With PG kids, not really. A PG child of 8 is actually likely to be more 
aware of matters sexual, and more able to deal with them, than other kids at 12. I 
wasn't convinced of this until recently but work on asynchronous development at the 
GDC in Denver is pretty clear. There's even some indication that PG kids 
(especially girls) may go through puberty 2-3 years earlier than the average, as a 
matter of course, though, so far, AFAIK, nobody has worked out any solid reason 
why this should be so (though there are theories... there are always theories).

> In some ways, it can be argued that the average 8 yr. old is more mature than the 
> average 12 yr. old when it comes to such things as being accepting of people who 
> are different than they are and being more sympathetic to those in pain.  When 
> kids hit the 11-13 year old range they get *very* aware of the differences between 
> people -- and they are very, very likely to be hostile towards those who are 
> different than them.

Yes, true to a great extent - but practice and research shows this has a very minor 
impact on any radically accelerated child in their class.

> And to kids who are, by definition, "different", this means allot.
>
> The only way the average 12 yr. old is going to be nice to another child whom  
> they perceive "different" is if that child is young enough that he or she is no longer > perceived as a peer, but as a "little kid"...which is why you don't find regular 
> students who are 4 or 5 years older than a PG kid being "cruel" to that child -- they 
> may be hormonal, insecure preteens -- but they aren't monsters.  Most of them 
> aren't going to be intentionally malicious to someone they think of as a little kid.  
> Esp. the girls will want to play "parent" to someone that young.  IMO, this is *not* 
> a healthy relationship for a PG kid who needs REAL friends.

So - where are you going to GET these real friends from.

Less than 5% of PG kids develop real friendships in age based classes.

At least 60% of PG kids in classes based on their level of ability make at least one 
real friend.

*If* these kids had a better chance of making friends in aged based classes, then 
denying acceleration on a friendship basis would make sense. But they don't - 95% 
of them will not make friends in aged based classes.

I went through 13 years of school, and I had one friend for less than one year in all 
that time. That's fairly typical for a PG child. They don't make friends when forced 
into the aged based regular classroom. They're just too different.

Acceleration reduces the differences dramatically. Instead of being different 
socially, intellectually, in terms of maturity, in terms of interests, they are suddenly 
much closer to the norm. Yes, they have a different date of birth - but that's far less 
significant than other differences.
 
> Therefore, while I agree that PG kids are VERY likely to have natural, comfortable > relationships with truly mature adults, and from that fact it's natural to come to the > conclusion that since adults=older=better relationships for gifted kids, then 11 yr. > old=older=better relationship for 
a 6 or 7 year old gifted child, this is simply not 
> the case.

So the 5 kids I had contact with in the last week who quite clearly say that this is 
how it is working for them, don't exist? They certainly made a lot of mess for a 
bunch of phantasms (-8
 
> And I know you're going to say that such and such number of studies dispute this -> - to which I have no defense except to say that it's very easy to make the results 
> of any study come out to what you want/expect them to be...unintentionally or 
> otherwise.

It's also very easy for a study to show what actually happens.

There are dozens of studies on this - they virtually all show similar results, including 
studies that were deliberately set up in an attempt to show the opposite. 

And I also happen to know some kids for whom this is working - and adults for 
whom it did work. And what they say backs up the research in general terms.
 
> >When it comes to profoundly gifted children, these kids do to tend to be more 
> >mature, more emotionally and socially developed than their chronological age would 
> >indicate, in the vast majority of cases. 
> 
> Emotionally and socially, sure.  But the things that make me feel that kids in the 
> 12ish age bracket are such unsuitable peers for someone around 8 years of age 
> are strongly influenced by *physical* factors.  The personalities, emotions, etc. of > kids approaching/going through puberty are *so*  influenced by *physical* (esp. 
> hormonal) changes that parents of such kids often complain that they don't 
> recognize the person who has suddenly and inexplicably taken over their child's 
> body.

Consider this - not all kids go through puberty at the same rate. Girls typically hit 
puberty at around 11 - but any age from 8-16 is considered to be in the normal 
range. There's an 8 year range of when kids have to deal with these issues anyway. 
And, as I've mentioned above, there's some indication that PG kids are hitting them 
on the early side of the norm.
 
> Also, I don't know about just PG kids, but *all* the gifted kids I know tended to 
> have a different experience of puberty than their peers anyway.  From my own 
> experience and the stories that the other gifted girls I know tell me now, we tend 
> to experience the change into adolescence as a period of deep depression and/or 
> indifference or annoyance at the antics of our peers...as opposed to said peers, 
> who spent most of their puberty years being quite MAD about boys.

That's not uncommon among gifted kids - PG kids actually do tend to handle it a 
little better with less angst, etc, mostly because they do have a higher level of 
emotional and social maturity.
 
> Now, don't get me wrong, I like boys and I've had my fair share of lunatic crushes.  
> If anything, I may have "noticed" boys as sexual beings before any of my friends -> - but there has been no point in my life where you could have caught me DEAD 
> giggling over a picture of some baby-faced celebrity or engaging in any of the 
> other activities that so characterize most pre-adolescent/adolescent girls' 
> discovery of their sexuality.  When my friends were going through this stage I felt 
> completely alienated and depressed...I can't imagine how confused and left-out I 
> would have felt if I was 8 or so when my classmates entered into this stage.       

Sure - but that's you. It's not a common problem for most PG kids. They are, 
typically, used to other kids behaving differently from them, and provided the 
different behaviour is not directed at them, they tend to just shrug it off.
 
> Now, wait a second.
> 
> What (I think) you are trying to say is that putting a PG kid a more than 3 grades 
> ahead of their age group is more beneficial than leaving them with kids their own > age.  

In general, yes.

> *I* am trying to say that neither sounds like a very good option to me.  

The criteria that should be used isn't whether either are good options - but which of 
the options is better.

Almost always, there are no perfect options. Often, there aren't even any near 
perfect options.

We have to make the choice that is the best option we have.

Even if acceleration isn't a good option, given the known serious ill effects most PG 
kids suffer in regular classrooms, it can still be the better option.

Radical acceleration isn't perfect - but it is a lot better than keeping a PG child in a 
chronologically aged based classroom in the vast majority of cases. It's the better 
choice.

It may not be clear, but I actually don't support radical acceleration as the best way 
of handling the needs of PG kids. I prefer other approaches - but they take a lot 
more in terms of resources and money to set up, and so often aren't options. 
Acceleration costs virtually nothing. It tends to be an option where others don't exist. 
And it's a better option than doing nothing.

> I 
> have no clue whether I would be considered PG or not -- probably not.  I'm 
> smart..but..I don't know..  I would definitely be uncomfortable with that label -- 
> probably develop some of the feelings of being a fraud and needing to live up to 
> other people's expectations such as another listie mentioned earlier in this 
> discussion.

We try to play down the label around the kids - but we don't totally ignore it, as 
sometimes it can be positive for kids to have a name for why they feel so different.

> But I *have* met a number of kids who -- if they aren't PG, I don't know who is.  
> Being part of a magnet school (which, BTW is just about the only place gifted kids 
> can go in Maine)...I also probably come in more contact with these people than 
> average person...And, yes, they do tend to be more mature than other kids their 
> age -- even other "gifted" kids...(I was surprised when I came here at the number > of very smart kids who were just as immature as my old set of peers...I had 
> always equated "intelligent" with "mature") And I do see the difference between 
> them and kids that are "gifted", but not EG/PG.  However, I still think my 
> arguments against putting them, as 8 yr. olds, in 7th or 8th grade are just as, if not 
> more, valid.

The thing is, we have to base these decisions on the evidence. If we don't, we allow 
our prejudices and biases to affect others. The research is clear.

I've had to change my position in the fact of that, at times. Because these kids are 
too important to miss out because individuals disagree.
 
> *sigh* Gifted or not, I'm probably the only person on this list stupid enough to try
>  argue with the amount of research that backs up your claims..but, there it is.  

It's never stupid to argue - especially not on issues that concern people, and which 
by definition, can never be entirely black or white - always a grey area. Always.

Yours Without Wax, Dreadnought
Shaun Hately |webpage: http://www.alphalink.com.au/~drednort/thelab.html
(ISTJ)       |email: drednort at alphalink.com.au | ICQ: 6898200
"You know the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in
common. They don't alter their views to fit the facts. They alter
the facts to fit the views. Which can be uncomfortable if you happen
to be one of the facts that need altering." The Doctor - Doctor Who:
The Face of Evil | Where am I: Frankston, Victoria, Australia