Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/bro ... -1.1595864" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Here we go again.

Gifted kids...WAY over-rated...always screwing up links and shit...

Ok I think I corrected it. Hope so. Try again.

How does one know if a Kindergartener is "Gifted"?
The entire premise in the first place is ridiculous

You really want to be careful "gifting" a person that is too young
It simply driving them to become sociopaths

Chizzang wrote:How does one know if a Kindergartener is "Gifted"?
The entire premise in the first place is ridiculous

You really want to be careful "gifting" a person that is too young
It simply driving them to become sociopaths

When I was in school they started differentiating around the 8th grade. In reality you can probably do it around the 4th or 5th grade but no earlier.

CID1990 wrote:

Chizzang wrote:How does one know if a Kindergartener is "Gifted"?
The entire premise in the first place is ridiculous

You really want to be careful "gifting" a person that is too young
It simply driving them to become sociopaths

When I was in school they started differentiating around the 8th grade. In reality you can probably do it around the 4th or 5th grade but no earlier.

That's about what I recall when I was in elementary school. I was in the "gifted" classes and it was easy to tell who didn't belong there. Those kids who sucked at reading and math did nothing but hold up the class as the teachers had to teach down to the lowest level to "not leave anyone behind". Some people are just smarter and more "gifted" than others in the academic arena. Apparently society no longer wants to acknowledge that truth.







The gifted class I was in was predominately black...but then again so was the whole neighborhood.

SDHornet wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
When I was in school they started differentiating around the 8th grade. In reality you can probably do it around the 4th or 5th grade but no earlier.

That's about what I recall when I was in elementary school. I was in the "gifted" classes and it was easy to tell who didn't belong there. Those kids who sucked at reading and math did nothing but hold up the class as the teachers had to teach down to the lowest level to "not leave anyone behind". Some people are just smarter and more "gifted" than others in the academic arena. Apparently society no longer wants to acknowledge that truth.



The gifted class I was in was predominately black...but then again so was the whole neighborhood.

There are absolutely times when kids should be challenged at a higher level
I'm not suggesting gifted classes shouldn't exist

but kindergarten..?
Kids really really need to learn how to "be kids" at 5 years old
playing / running around / dancing / singing / eating glue

I repeat: Telling a 5 year old they are gifted is really dangerous (to the child)
Building sociopaths should not be a societal goal

What does a old wooden ship from the Civil War have to do with anything!?

Chizzang wrote:How does one know if a Kindergartener is "Gifted"?

Skin color.

From http://www.davidsongifted.org/db/Articl ... giftedness" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; :

Technically, the Stanford Binet Intelligence Scale (both the Fourth Edition and Form L-M) can be used with children as young as 2 years, 0 months; the Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence - Revised (WPPSI-R) is designed for use with children as young as age three.

However, testing very young children under age four is not usually recommended unless there is a compelling reason. Two- and three-year-olds (even the brightest ones) are a challenge to test. Children this age get hungry, tired, have wet diapers, and often do not react positively to strangers. They may prefer to play with the examiner's test materials in their own way, rather than do what the examiner asks. They sometimes simply refuse to respond to the examiner at all. They may need a parent present during the test session. In the case of gifted young children, to reach a ceiling on the test, the examiner must ask a number of questions designed for older children, lengthening the usual testing time. A very young gifted child may tire before the test is completed, and not give his or her best effort to all the questions. An examiner skilled at testing preschoolers can ameliorate some of these difficulties, of course. However, unless there is a very good reason to test a preschool gifted child, it is better to wait until just before kindergarten entrance, when the test results are usually more reliable and the child is old enough to cooperate fully in the testing situation.

Underline added for emphasis. It might take me a while to find references but I think you guys are wrong. I know I've read before that IQ is fairly stable. In other words: IQ at a very young age such as 5 or 6 is highly correlated with IQ as an adult.

Question the validity of methods for determining "giftedness" all you want (I'm not saying you shouldn't), but JSO is correct. Those that test as gifted as children will probably do so in 6th grade or 8th grade or whenever you think gifted programs should be started.

The obvious problem here is that it seems more important to have a diverse classroom than to have a classroom environment where students can learn at their own pace.

I was tested in first and was transferred into the "gifted" program starting in 2nd grade (which i washed out of by 6th, long story). Its good to be challenged as a young child, I agree that kindergarten is a bit early however.

JohnStOnge wrote:From http://www.davidsongifted.org/db/Articl ... giftedness" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; :

Technically, the Stanford Binet Intelligence Scale (both the Fourth Edition and Form L-M) can be used with children as young as 2 years, 0 months; the Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence - Revised (WPPSI-R) is designed for use with children as young as age three.

However, testing very young children under age four is not usually recommended unless there is a compelling reason. Two- and three-year-olds (even the brightest ones) are a challenge to test. Children this age get hungry, tired, have wet diapers, and often do not react positively to strangers. They may prefer to play with the examiner's test materials in their own way, rather than do what the examiner asks. They sometimes simply refuse to respond to the examiner at all. They may need a parent present during the test session. In the case of gifted young children, to reach a ceiling on the test, the examiner must ask a number of questions designed for older children, lengthening the usual testing time. A very young gifted child may tire before the test is completed, and not give his or her best effort to all the questions. An examiner skilled at testing preschoolers can ameliorate some of these difficulties, of course. However, unless there is a very good reason to test a preschool gifted child, it is better to wait until just before kindergarten entrance, when the test results are usually more reliable and the child is old enough to cooperate fully in the testing situation.

Underline added for emphasis. It might take me a while to find references but I think you guys are wrong. I know I've read before that IQ is fairly stable. In other words: IQ at a very young age such as 5 or 6 is highly correlated with IQ as an adult.

True- but that IQ doesn't necessarily manifest itself in terms of ability until later

Some "gifted" kids are simply good students with parents who stress homework and organization. Conversely some kids who struggle at school are high level ADHD are are extremely intelligent but struggle the conformity of mainstream education.

I tried to find a good source that specifically mentioned some idea as to the magnitude of the correlation and was unable too. However, I was able to find a "Duke.edu" source that states the general situation. It's at http://tip.duke.edu/node/1378" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; and the statement I'm talking about is this:

Generally, an individual’s IQ remains relatively stable over time. One study measured the intelligence of individuals at age 77 who had been tested when they were in elementary school and found that, in general, performance stayed relatively the same. But that doesn’t mean there are never any changes.

My impression is that's how it is. If a child tests into the gifted program going into Kindergarten that kid is probably going to stay "gifted" throughout. Not absolutely certain but probably. Also, it's possible that a child won't test as "gifted" going into kindergarten but may later be seen as "gifted." But I don't think it's likely. I think that most kids who test "gifted" at 5 or 6 years old are going to stay in the "gifted" category and most who don't test as "gifted" will never be in the "gifted" category.

I actually saw the "tested 'gifted' early" thing unfold with one of my brothers. Tested very early on with an IQ in the 140s somewhere. Seems like it was 147 but not sure. Throughout elementary and high school he never made anything less than an A on any report card or even any single test. And he really didn't have to try hard. Never studied much. Graduated valedictorian and scored above the 99th percentiles on the ACT and SAT. National merit scholar.

No question he is a "once smart, always smart" example to date.

Back to the problem incorporating some fun with National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) scores. The lowest grade NAEP math test score is for the 4th grade so lets go with that. Let's use New York State scores and assume students in each racial group at the school score like students in that racial group score in New York State overall.

The article says more than 2/3 of the students at the school are Black and Hispanic while 28 percent are White and Asian. So let's go with this breakdown for 4th graders at the school:

42 percent Black
30 percent Hispanic
20 percent White
8 percent Asian

So what would happen if you had a "Gifted in Math" program where let all 4th graders in the school take the 2013 4th grade NAEP math test and took those that scored well enough to be in the top 5 percent for New York State? Here's how the racial composition of that "gifted program" would look based on means and standard deviations you can obtain from the NAEP data explorer:

9 percent Black
16 percent Hispanic
39 percent Asian
37 percent White

That would be the result of completely fair application of an objective standard. But you can bet our culture would have problems with that because, in a school that's 42 percent Black, only 9 percent of participants in the gifted program are. And my bet is that is exactly what's going on here. Reality in terms of percentages of students that test into the gifted program by race doesn't fit the egalitarian ideal. So they get rid of the gifted program.

To me, any reasonable person would think that such a mentality hurts this society. A reasonable person would think it keeps it from being as successful a society as it could be. But it's a mentality that dominates our culture right now.

The code word is "diversity." But what the code word means is "enough Blacks and/or Hispanics." And, really, it's usually "enough Blacks."

As the cliche goes, you don't hear anybody complain about a lack of diversity among NBA players. And, racially, that's about as "un diverse" a group as you're going to find in a professional area. It's not really "diversity" they're worried about. "Diversity" is just the angle used to get there since saying "quotas" is now illegal.

kalm wrote:Some "gifted" kids are simply good students with parents who stress homework and organization. Conversely some kids who struggle at school are high level ADHD are are extremely intelligent but struggle the conformity of mainstream education.

And those kids shouldn't be held back by those who can't/won't get their shit together in the classroom.

kalm wrote:Some "gifted" kids are simply good students with parents who stress homework and organization. Conversely some kids who struggle at school are high level ADHD are are extremely intelligent but struggle the conformity of mainstream education.

I'm pretty sure I was both to a certain degree. My ADHD probably wasn't "high level" and many would argue that I'm far from "extremely intelligent" but I was reasonably smart and definitely had problems with concentration but my parents expected me to overcome those issues and worked with me to help me do so.

SDHornet wrote:

kalm wrote:Some "gifted" kids are simply good students with parents who stress homework and organization. Conversely some kids who struggle at school are high level ADHD are are extremely intelligent but struggle the conformity of mainstream education.

And those kids shouldn't be held back by those who can't/won't get their shit together in the classroom.

It's not as if you have just the gifted kids and everyone else is a failure. Gifted kids can learn quite a bit from mentoring. Gifted programs should be extra curricular.

kalm wrote:

SDHornet wrote: And those kids shouldn't be held back by those who can't/won't get their **** together in the classroom.

It's not as if you have just the gifted kids and everyone else is a failure. Gifted kids can learn quite a bit from mentoring. Gifted programs should be extra curricular.

I agree with your 1st two sentences but have to ask why on the 3rd. Why can't you have both - classes where the more advanced kids are challenged plus opportunities for them to work with and assist those who aren't as advanced?

UNI88 wrote:

kalm wrote:
It's not as if you have just the gifted kids and everyone else is a failure. Gifted kids can learn quite a bit from mentoring. Gifted programs should be extra curricular.

I agree with your 1st two sentences but have to ask why on the 3rd. Why can't you have both - classes where the more advanced kids are challenged plus opportunities for them to work with and assist those who aren't as advanced?

Probably right. It's just the egalitarian anti-elitist in me talking. Kalm is a champion of the common man!

Ibanez wrote:What does a old wooden ship from the Civil War have to do with anything!?

Just wanted you to know this gem didn't go unnoticed.

UNI88 wrote:

kalm wrote:
It's not as if you have just the gifted kids and everyone else is a failure. Gifted kids can learn quite a bit from mentoring. Gifted programs should be extra curricular.

I agree with your 1st two sentences but have to ask why on the 3rd. Why can't you have both - classes where the more advanced kids are challenged plus opportunities for them to work with and assist those who aren't as advanced?

Yup. We just need to get over the concept that all kids should be stuck in the same level of class and understand some kids will just do better than others and there should be environments for those kids to excel and be pushed in. Handcuffing the potential of our brightest is not a smart way to go.

JohnStOnge wrote:Back to the problem incorporating some fun with National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) scores. The lowest grade NAEP math test score is for the 4th grade so lets go with that. Let's use New York State scores and assume students in each racial group at the school score like students in that racial group score in New York State overall.

The article says more than 2/3 of the students at the school are Black and Hispanic while 28 percent are White and Asian. So let's go with this breakdown for 4th graders at the school:

42 percent Black
30 percent Hispanic
20 percent White
8 percent Asian

So what would happen if you had a "Gifted in Math" program where let all 4th graders in the school take the 2013 4th grade NAEP math test and took those that scored well enough to be in the top 5 percent for New York State? Here's how the racial composition of that "gifted program" would look based on means and standard deviations you can obtain from the NAEP data explorer:

9 percent Black
16 percent Hispanic
39 percent Asian
37 percent White

That would be the result of completely fair application of an objective standard. But you can bet our culture would have problems with that because, in a school that's 42 percent Black, only 9 percent of participants in the gifted program are. And my bet is that is exactly what's going on here. Reality in terms of percentages of students that test into the gifted program by race doesn't fit the egalitarian ideal. So they get rid of the gifted program.

To me, any reasonable person would think that such a mentality hurts this society. A reasonable person would think it keeps it from being as successful a society as it could be. But it's a mentality that dominates our culture right now.

The code word is "diversity." But what the code word means is "enough Blacks and/or Hispanics." And, really, it's usually "enough Blacks."

As the cliche goes, you don't hear anybody complain about a lack of diversity among NBA players. And, racially, that's about as "un diverse" a group as you're going to find in a professional area. It's not really "diversity" they're worried about. "Diversity" is just the angle used to get there since saying "quotas" is now illegal.

I knew if we let him talk enough, he would say shit like this

kalm wrote:

SDHornet wrote: And those kids shouldn't be held back by those who can't/won't get their **** together in the classroom.

It's not as if you have just the gifted kids and everyone else is a failure. Gifted kids can learn quite a bit from mentoring. Gifted programs should be extra curricular.

They aren't there to teach your kids, Klam.

Jesus you libs... first you want gazillions of tax dollars to pay for increasingly dumbed down education and now you want my kids to teach yours? Teach your own kids 2+2 in the 8th grade. Mine have more important shit to do- like diffy-Qs so they can build me a spaceship to get the fvck off this retard rock