For Frustrated Gifted Kids, A World of Online Opportunities | Hacker News Reader

For Frustrated Gifted Kids, A World of Online Opportunities

blogs.kqed.org

84 pointstokenadult35 comments

We need to be doing something for these kids. I know when I was in school I was incredibly bored and underwhelmed. I'd typically understand a concept pretty quickly when it was introduced, and then have nothing to do while the teacher had to explain it a million times for the next several days, and I'd finish my tests and work much more quickly than most, too. I dunno if I was necessarily one of the brightest minds out there, but school did always come easy to me.

So, I'd do other things when I didn't need to pay attention. When I was really little, I'd act out. Doctors tried to tell my parents I had ADD and prescribe drugs -- fortunately my parents knew better (my dad had the same issues when he was a kid). Later, I actually found a healthy outlet -- I brought a sketchpad to school and drew pictures when I wasn't learning anything. Still, the teachers got upset and eventually took that away.

I feel like it would've been a lot more beneficial to me if there had been some alternative. Or, at least, if I hadn't constantly got in trouble for what essentially amounts to being bored.

We don't need to do anything for these kids. They have the internet now, that is all that is needed.

Charitably assuming that was sarcasm, no that is not all that is needed. Boring the crap out of children and teaching them that no one cares what they want and that people with authority can shit all over them with impunity may be good preparation for adult life but one can in fact do better. Even working under the constraint that there must be a place for parents to park their children while they go work one can do a lot better.

Montessori and Sudbury/Democratic schools do not work on the sit down shut up and do as you're told model and they do very well.

And if we're going to do the sit down, shut up and do as you're told model why can't we at least use the best method for it, Direct Instruction?

It's not sarcasm. There is nothing you can do for them that will be better than allowing them the free time to learn at their own pace from the internet.

A highly gifted or profoundly gifted child does not need education in the traditional sense, they need emotional support. The intellectual support the average teacher is going to be able to provide will very frequently be inadequate.

It was suggested I go to a democratic school, but I declined. Such a thing would have been good for me,but what would have been better: Just let me get on with learning about the world with a group of my peers.

I think I understand what you're saying. Allowing them to learn at their own pace would still be doing something, though.

In school, whenever a new concept was introduced, I often found that I understood it pretty quickly, but that we'd spend days on the topic while several other students in class struggled to grasp it. During that time, I was expected to sit there and pay attention -- even though it was a waste of time. Even creative outlets, like drawing, were not allowed. If I could have used that time to learn something new on my own, through the Internet or whatever else, that would have been a lot better than just sitting there. Even just letting the students who understand the topic out to play or something until the next topic is introduced would be better and more productive than just having them sit there.

Once I got to college it got a lot better -- I was able to skip classes that I knew would be a waste of time and do more productive things, or bring a laptop to class and do something else when the professor was explaining something I already understood. But prior to college I didn't own a laptop -- not that it would have been allowed even if I did!

From my perspective we are either in agreement or nitpicking then. Ideally children would be free to do their own thing subject to the constraint that that thing not be unsafe to no good purpose.

Where would you have found peers outside of a school environment? Given the normal school system is 0 and unschooling is 10 where would you place democratic schools?

I presume unschooling is a good approximation to your ideal.

The internet doesn't help them getting bored out of their minds in class and giving up on school. School needs to let students go at the pace they're capable of, or why are they even there?

My son was converting binary to decimal when he was 5, found (x+1)^2 = x^2 + 2x + 1 by himself at the age of 6. Now he's interested in logarithmic calculations, doing very well on Chesstempo, learns languages using Duolingo and loves reading heavy books on his Kindle at the age of 7.

On the other hand, he never interested in any kind of sports (only exception is, thanks to Strider balance bikes, he's good at cycling). He's having trouble building relations with other kids around his age, sometimes hits or creatively frustrates them to cover his lack of physical skills.

Any parent can find billions of great things online for the gifted child. It would be great if it was that easy for my child to deal with the real world.

I agree with you here - if parents invest the time and are able to understand their child's needs it is not too difficult to find enough material online or actually offline.

Taking your story as an example, I take it you are somewhat versed in maths yourself to appreciate what your son has done and probably assisted in the introduction to the subject matter at the time (I am making assumptions here - sorry if that's not correct)

Let's say though your kid is gifted in other areas that you have no personal attachment to - how does one go about kindling that interest? If your kid seems to be great in drawing but you have no clue about the fine arts, how can one add meaningful stimulus to support and encourage further study in that field?

This is a long shot, but have you tried taking him to an indoor bouldering gym? It is a very mentally demanding physical activity, that does not require any outside interaction with others but at the same time encourages it while also developing an appreciation for physicality.

My friend's son started going when he was 3, so no there is no time too early.

I once researched for it but we don't have such a gym in my city. There are a couple of them in Istanbul (1 hr), I'll take a look. I didn't know that bouldering is a mentally demanding sport but now understand the routes and colored handles' purpose when I think of them, my son would love such challenges. Thanks.

You might also consider getting slacklind. You can set a line up between two trees, and learning to balance is extremely mentally taxing. I live in central Istanbul and have found a group of people regularly slacklining in Macka Park, so there must be supplies available.

I second this, it really is a fantastic physical puzzle game.

Why stick to bouldering? Although I'm a huge bouldering fan, the intellectual and physical concepts of solving bouldering problems translate just as well onto roped climbing (whether it be sport climbing, traditional or top roping). Moreoever, you get to introduce your kid (and potentially yourself) to learning about knots, how to build anchors and the physics behind falling (all of which are awesome theoretical concepts to experience and play with in real life).

I honestly have no idea if this would work and I have nothing to back up this idea other than my own personal experience, so take it with a grain of salt...

Have you tried making "normal" kids games mentally challenging for him? At 7, I imagine he's being exposed to team sports such as basketball, soccer, etc. Perhaps there's a way to make it interesting for him by getting at the strategy behind these games rather than just the physical activity part. Especially if he's competitive, it might work to expose him to what it means to beat someone at a sport strategically rather than just physically overwhelm.

I can say that this appealed to me as a kid as I was ridiculously competitive, but didn't always have the physical skill necessary to win. Once I realized that you can often win by playing smarter, it was like a whole new world.

Similar here. Ridiculously competitive, and though I had inconsistent physical results, I enjoyed learning strategy as well as making physical progress.

I personally found great intellectual stimulation and feelings of satisfaction from one-on-one sports such as tennis, table tennis (ping pong), badminton, racquetball, and wrestling. I also played team sports quite a bit, and enjoyed being a student of those games, but I tended to prefer pursuing mastery of one-on-one sports (edit to add: though I've never come close to mastery).

By distilling the experience down to a one-on-one competition, I find I'm able to focus more on the intellectual pursuit, as opposed to the intellectual+social pursuit of team sports. Handling social dynamics can sometimes overwhelm me when I attempt to focus on the strategic and the intellectual.

Everyone's experience and taste is different, of course. Many paths can lead to happiness :)

“These students are going to produce an outsized portion of the major technological, medical, mathematical, scientific, economic advances of the next generation,”

When I was In school, there was a GATE program (gifted and talented education ???). But I think it was meant to target the top 10% or 20% of students. But when you think about where the really big advances for civilization will come from, maybe there should be a focus on the top 1% or 2%. That's sort of the opposite of public school today. I suppose instead of No Child Left Behind, it's No Child Left Unchallenged.

I too was in GATE, and I think it's still around. However, where I live now, there actually is a program for the top 1% and they have their own dedicated school. It may not be common, but this focus on the very top is happening in some places at least.

The newest ways of thinking about schools as learning communities have moved from the "pyramid of intervention" or how to save failing students, to a more holistic "diamond" that covers both ends of the spectrum.

While not super common AFAIK, it is moving.

Plenty of children struggle in school and go on to do amazing things afterward, and plenty of “child geniuses” are lavished with attention and go on to do nothing notable.

The purpose of a school should be to encourage all students to flourish, not to pick the ones who will “advance civilization” at age 5.

So, just ignore the potential benefit to society of identifying and using the brains of those who are "gifted"? We don't have to ditch the program of public schooling in order to do so.

Arguably by not challenging those at the top end of the academic achievement spectrum one is not "encourag[ing] all students to flourish".

This is a bit of a straw-man.

No one is suggesting teaching just the top 1% and leaving the rest to fend for themselves. Just putting them in a separate class for a few hour a week so they can be with other smart kids and be challenged.

The bottom 10-20% in every subject could probably use something similar.

California had a grade-school program in the 1970s called MGM - "Mentally Gifted Minors" - which focused on the top 2% (IQ 132+). It was cool, but IIRC at my school it basically replaced a single class period per week - I think it was taught by one part-time teacher who rotated between different schools on different days, trying to keep kids intellectually engaged and relieve them from the most tedious stuff they would otherwise have to suffer through.

These new tools (or Khan Academy, or even the self-paced books that homeschoolers used to use) would probably allow kids to make a lot more progress were they so inclined.

The Los Angeles school district has run a program since at least the early 80s which, I kid you not, focuses on the top 0.1% in "intellectual giftedness". I attended this program in elementary school and met the most interesting people I knew before going to college.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highly_Gifted_Magnet

As a profoundly gifted child the having the Internet would have transformed my life. If I had had access to the knowledge I have access to now I would have been where I am now at 32 by the time I went to University at 20. I would probably not have fallen into the dark depression in my teens, induced primarily by boredom. It is going to be exciting to see what the exceptional people of the next generation will look like, very exciting :)

I thought along the same lines of what having the internet would have meant in terms of supercharging my progress as well, but also thought about the number of easy distractions it provides. Would you have been where you are at 32 in terms of knowledge, or would you have spend 80 percent of your time leveling up on Wow or some other easy temptation? Always helps to reflect on the total context of the situation.

By the time I was 16 I was ready to do university level subjects in my chosen field and was even on a course that would have articulated to it - so instead of graduating high school I would have dropped out. School principal didn't want me to drop out, so organised a meeting with myself, her and the careers counsellor which left me shaken up! I ended up finishing high school but at some personal cost - failed a subject, got depressed and ended skipping 1-2 days per week.

My elementary school had an "academically gifted" program which I was a part of. They put us there during the school day, isolating us from our classmates and making us seem even more "weird" than we already were. It didn't bother me, because I've never really been a "people person." But I'm sure it wasn't the best idea for some of the rest.

Of note: we were the only students in the school that were allowed unsupervised computer access, and it's where I pulled off my very first "computer crime." I found a special menu that was accessible via a series of held keys, one of which happened to be "print screen." I got caught because stacks and stacks of papers were printed off in the office, and I was officially banned from the computers. Fun times :-)

General question (I know nothing, just musing).

Is there any specific reason or logic behind accelerating gifted kids through the primary-secondary-college system? If you had school dedicated to these kids, could they just go through the standard material faster,2 hours a day, 2 days a week or 2 months a year?

That would take care of the boredom problem. There are stimulating things other than school.

I don't see any particular advantage in entering college at 14.

For your average, middle-class parents this isn't practical. They have jobs & school is pretty much free daycare they wouldn't want to give up.

There are so many advantages to entering college at 14. For a start, it looks great on your resume. Which means you have a whole host of cool work opportunities when you graduate, meaning you can start a fun and interesting career at 18- rather than slog on through the system, waiting to be recognised at 22-25. Source: know a lot of Thiel fellows.

As a 'gifted' but bored student, I see so many programs (online, self paced programs) that I would have loved. My youngest brother was able to graduate from high school a year early with honors, yet he was the least academic out of all of us kids (5 total). I went to small high school with only AP Spanish and AP Calculus, of which getting into depended on what track you were put into in middle school (didn't make it due to just moving into the area). My parents were also very wary about not screwing us up socially (no skipping grades). Having these types of programs that go with you if your family moves, interest changes or anything else, would have been amazing!

"gifted" ..phew who told you so ?

all I can say is, thanks you to my elementary school for running a gifted and talented program, and for the nearby university letting me use their internet access (this was in the era of 1200 baud modems). Everything I get to do today is because those things enabled me to learn on my own.

Anyway, I don't know that reading at a high level at a young age really is a good predictor for future success (measured in impact, rather than, say, dollars).

how this will not create more divide in already divided society ? Counter argument could be made that everyone starts at level zero and their environment/condition make them learn slow or fast. Just telling your kids that they are gifted won't make them gifted. I know hundred of cases where parents told their child since early childhood that they are special, they are gifted but eventually child failed, fall behind even behind those considered "slow" All people commenting here that "they are gifted" should really take second look. Solving a math equation fast doesn't make you gifted. Life is far far complex than classroom maths. So STFU and have beer. Its friday !

Ask any teacher, and they'll tell you that any given school is only capable of properly serving the middle 90%, or, at best, 95%, of its students.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com