[Ohiogift] ungiftedness

[Margaret DeLacy]

>challenge the conventional wisdom about the childhood predictors of adult success


Speaking just for myself, I am frustrated when I see comments about how "gifted programs" have failed if their graduates turn out to be "ordinary" and don't turn out to be distinguished or "successful" by some outside standard.  I want to grab these authors by the lapels and scream "that's just the point!"  I believe that most parents of children with physical disabilities or intellectual disabilities want their children to have as normal a life as possible.  That is just what I want for my own children.  I don't expect my children to become "great".  I just want them to survive school with their spirits mostly intact.

There are indeed many paths to greatness.  Many great men and women had terrible childhoods, but I didn't abuse my own children in the hope that some day they would write a best-selling memoir about it.  Similarly, I didn't want to see my children abused in school, even if it turned them into distinguished individuals down the road.  

That is one of the reasons I am uncomfortable with the new NAGC definition of giftedness.  It seems to be about what society wants from gifted children.  I am more interested in seeing them engaged in school, happy in their relationships and satisfied with their eventual occupations, however humble. Maybe Kaufmann has the same point of view--I will read the book (eventually) and find out.  But I reject the claim that we should identify gifted students  in order to predict adult success.  We should identify gifted students to find those for whom regular classroom instruction is inappropriate so the level and pace of instruction can be modified and they don't go crazy sitting in class. 

The founding fathers didn't write about life, liberty and success.  They wrote about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  Why should we want less for our children?  

In any case, thank you Art for letting me know about the book.

Margaret