To do some justice to this discussion, my own experience being grouped into smart programs was generally positive. kirby1024 is certainly right that even the brightest kids are in a fairly similar place socially as regular kids. The ones who turn their intelligence into introspection mature much more quickly than normal kids, but it seems that only a particular subset of smart kids are prone to do that.
Generally speaking, I would say that in +2σ programs like you get for gifted programs in primary ed the kids are still just kids. Already you get into the problem that few adults know how to deal with someone who's smarter than them, let alone how to teach them. People are very intimidated by intelligence and so it sets off all the triggers for social combat. But the biggest problem for +2σ kids is simply teaching them. They abhor rote exercise, know when they're being condescended to, know just how far they can push the system and still get an A, can get by without studying or paying attention in class, etc. While their social development may still be childish, their intelligence gives them an insight into how the system works and they'll use that to the greatest extent they can. Here is where I think a lot of the negative experience kirby was referring to comes in.
The real problems come in with the +3σ kids. Even against the metric of +2σ programs they're as bored as +2σ kids in regular classes. And by this point most teachers have entirely given up on being able to teach them something they don't already know, and many teachers may even fear/hate them because they'll constantly upstage the teacher (in part unintentionally, and in part out of malicious boredom). Given their statistical dispersion, there isn't really an easy way to set up a schooling program for them, so any help they get will be extracurricular.
There seem to be two kinds of +3σ kids: the hyperfocused, and the panspective. The hyperfocused kids are the ones you can set loose in a laboratory environment and they'll just tinker away, oblivious to the social goings on. They tend to be the ones in the smart-bordering-on-autistic realm. For them, good programs are things like Physics Olympics or Math Camp where they can pit their mind against other schools' brightest in open-ended competitions. You can't really teach them facts, but you can still teach them method, and these programs are good for that since you don't need brilliance to have and teach good methods. For hyperfocused kids who aren't into math/physics/computers, there doesn't seem to be very many analogous programs.
The panspective kids are the ones who will try their hand at a bit of everything, the ones who'll experiment just to test the boundaries of what they can do. The constant problem here is having enough to keep them entertained. They're the ones more likely to give over to introspection or turn their intelligence to social engineering, more because it's an available venue to experiment in than because of any high-minded nature per se. Given the breadth of their intelligence they're the ones most disenfranchised by the focus on specialization in our academic system, and unless they can discern a more robust self-esteem they'll find themselves upstaged by the hyperfocused (in the HF's field of expertise) which can lead to "not smart enough" syndrome. I think these kids are the hardest to make programs for, though there are some summer programs like CTY which provide enough of academe with not only extreme depth but also variety of disciplines and children to interact with.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2007-05-17 23:53 (UTC)Generally speaking, I would say that in +2σ programs like you get for gifted programs in primary ed the kids are still just kids. Already you get into the problem that few adults know how to deal with someone who's smarter than them, let alone how to teach them. People are very intimidated by intelligence and so it sets off all the triggers for social combat. But the biggest problem for +2σ kids is simply teaching them. They abhor rote exercise, know when they're being condescended to, know just how far they can push the system and still get an A, can get by without studying or paying attention in class, etc. While their social development may still be childish, their intelligence gives them an insight into how the system works and they'll use that to the greatest extent they can. Here is where I think a lot of the negative experience kirby was referring to comes in.
The real problems come in with the +3σ kids. Even against the metric of +2σ programs they're as bored as +2σ kids in regular classes. And by this point most teachers have entirely given up on being able to teach them something they don't already know, and many teachers may even fear/hate them because they'll constantly upstage the teacher (in part unintentionally, and in part out of malicious boredom). Given their statistical dispersion, there isn't really an easy way to set up a schooling program for them, so any help they get will be extracurricular.
There seem to be two kinds of +3σ kids: the hyperfocused, and the panspective. The hyperfocused kids are the ones you can set loose in a laboratory environment and they'll just tinker away, oblivious to the social goings on. They tend to be the ones in the smart-bordering-on-autistic realm. For them, good programs are things like Physics Olympics or Math Camp where they can pit their mind against other schools' brightest in open-ended competitions. You can't really teach them facts, but you can still teach them method, and these programs are good for that since you don't need brilliance to have and teach good methods. For hyperfocused kids who aren't into math/physics/computers, there doesn't seem to be very many analogous programs.
The panspective kids are the ones who will try their hand at a bit of everything, the ones who'll experiment just to test the boundaries of what they can do. The constant problem here is having enough to keep them entertained. They're the ones more likely to give over to introspection or turn their intelligence to social engineering, more because it's an available venue to experiment in than because of any high-minded nature per se. Given the breadth of their intelligence they're the ones most disenfranchised by the focus on specialization in our academic system, and unless they can discern a more robust self-esteem they'll find themselves upstaged by the hyperfocused (in the HF's field of expertise) which can lead to "not smart enough" syndrome. I think these kids are the hardest to make programs for, though there are some summer programs like CTY which provide enough of academe with not only extreme depth but also variety of disciplines and children to interact with.