[Ohiogift] Labelling the gifted

[Lauren Sindelar]

I disagree with their reasons. However, I do feel that the actual word,
gifted, when used too often, could be harmful to the student. I think that
we need to be very careful about when we use the word, and try to make sure
the child isn't around as much as possible. I know they know they're
different, and most of them probably realize they're smarter than their
peers. But, they don't need to hear it everyday. Not only does it take some
of the meaning away, but it puts unnecessary pressure on the student to
perform at certain standards at all times and, when those standards aren't
met, it may not be the parents and teachers who are disappointed, but the
student. I'm not saying that it's harmful for all students - everyone is
different. But, I'd be willing to bet that there is a subgroup of them
(think along the lines of lack of resiliency, I guess) that would benefit
from a lack of the "gifted" description.

Just my two cents, which are certainly up for debate - I'm speaking from
personal experience and not the whole.

~Lauren Sindelar
On Apr 16, 2014 8:07 PM, "Margaret DeLacy" <margaretdelacy at comcast.net>
wrote:

>
> http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2014/04/16/28peters_ep.h33.html?cmp=ENL-EU-NEWS1
>
> Commentary
> Gifted Ed. Is Crucial, But the Label Isn't
> By Scott J. Peters, Scott Barry Kaufman, Michael S. Matthews, Matthew T.
> McBee, D. Betsy McCoach
>
> "But how does the label of "gifted" help teachers and administrators
> determine the appropriate programming for students? In our view, the term
> is not only unhelpful, but actually harmful to the interests of bright
> students. "Gifted" is an educationally nondescript concept, yet it also
> connotes an endowment that some students receive while others do not.
> Moreover, the term seems to suggest that high academic performance is a
> permanent quality, both due to chance and applicable in all domains.
>
> The truth is that "giftedness" is irrelevant to K-12 educational
> decisions. What is relevant is whether the instruction a child receives is
> sufficiently rigorous to challenge that child. When that is not the case,
> there are many potential causes."
>
> Margaret comments:
>
> I disagree with this.  I think the authors are insensitive to the
> realities of a school environment where time and energy are at a premium.
>  These constraints make it exceedingly unlikely that a child will have
> access to "rigorous" instruction without a formal procedure for identifying
> the students who are likely to need significant interventions.
>
> Suppose I went to a nursery and said "one of my plants is failing to
> thrive.  What should I do?"
>
> The nursery worker says, "what plant is it?"
>
> I say, "I don't know.  I don't believe in labelling my plants."
>
> The nursery isn't going to send someone out to my home to see what plant
> it is.  I don't have the time to try to figure it out.  So the plant
> doesn't get what it needs.
>
> Labels are never perfect.  They are always probabilistic.  Labels can be
> switched or wrong.  But a good label would tell a knowledgeable person what
> kind of plant I probably have, how it fits in a taxonomy of plants, and
> what sorts of issues it might have.  For example, there are tens of
> thousands of species of rhododendrons.  But even if all we know is that the
> plant is a rhododendron at least that would also mean it probably needs
> acid soil. At least we would know to check for that issue.
>
> Margaret
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ohiogift mailing list
> Ohiogift at lists.service.ohio-state.edu
> https://lists.service.ohio-state.edu/mailman/listinfo/ohiogift
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osu.edu/pipermail/ohiogift/attachments/20140416/080bdab3/attachment.html>