Any parents of gifted children here ?
-
ChiefKiasu:
ChiefKS, the authorities did no wrong in hothousing these children to the general 'benefit' of Singapore. As told, they are looking for someone who is 'hungry for success'That takes compassion, which is a quality I felt is being neglected by authorities in their eagerness to identify and groom gifted children to maximize their potential to \"benefit\" Singapore so as not to \"waste\" their talents. In fact, I feel that most Singaporeans think that compassion is just about giving money to the needy.
. Teaching of compassion lies with the parents. If not, the next thing we know is the compulsion of volunteer work in the curriculum for the sake of cultivating compassionate future leaders.
I once read from the news about a promising young student who did volunteer work with no expectations of any returns in the means of aggregate incentives in CCA points/psle/o-levels (whichever), but I can't help thinking if she is going to use that in her scholarship application or future job application as a leverage against others. It is precisely those who shun the media coverage on their contribution to the less fortunate that truly are the heroes in our society.
Oh...i'm off topic again. :oops: -
tamarind:
Tamarind,
The word \"gifted\" has become elitist, simply because the education system in Singapore made it like that.
I do not think that IQ test is a good way of judging whether a child is gifted or not. \"High IQ score\" does not equal \"gifted\".
1. Giftedness is not something that began in Singapore. Most people in the international community want to celebrate and deal with the differences, but unfortunately, the term seems to imply a gift that some have but others are not privy to. It makes people want to compensate by saying all children are gifted. To these people, I'd like to hand over my problems! Personally, I feel a bit uneasy, but there is no alternative.
2. At present, there is no other way of testing for giftedness except through an IQ test, and even then, it is a narrow test that focuses on more academically inclined skills.tamarind:
3. And of course, I do not mean that giftedness is a phase that will pass. Not even at 5! I mean that the issues arising from giftedness will pass, although new ones will keep cropping up. This will require time and maturity on the child's part to resolve. The reality is, these issues are probably not different from a lot of parenting issues, but they sometimes happen sooner or are more intense (I am guessing - or, the parent, ie me, is more inept. Not out of the question!). Which is why parenting forums are so useful, as a lot of the good folks here have pointed out.I do not agree to view it as a phase and let it pass. I read that children learn best from 0 - 5 years old. This is the best age to teach the child languages, not only speaking, but also the ability to read. Once they are older, they will have so much more distractions, and will not be so motivated to learn.
Your statement implies that there is a corrrelation between teaching and giftedness. Frankly, I can't see this at all. -
1. It is true that \"giftedness\" did not begin in Singapore. What I mean is that the education system in Singapore made it elitist, by separating \"gifted\" kids from others. I am not sure which other country in the world classifies gifted kids nationwide, in public schools.
2. IQ test
Please read this webpage
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gifted
The formal identification of giftedness first emerged as an important issue for schools, as the instruction of gifted students often presents special challenges. During the 20th century, gifted children were often classified via IQ tests, however, recent developments in theories of intelligence have raised serious questions regarding the appropriate uses and limits of such testing. Many schools in North America and Europe have attempted to identify students who are not challenged by standard school curricula and offer additional or specialized education for them in the hope of nurturing their talents.
3. If a highly gifted child is never taught to read, never have the chance to go to school, do you think he can achieve anything ? A gifted child must be taught in a way that is suitable to him. -
ChiefKiasu:
My auntie died of ovarian cancer. Last year my father had a cancerous tumor in his stomach. He underwent a operation to remove the tumor, which involved removing a section of his stomach. He completely recovered. I really respect the surgeon who operated on him in SGH. He works really hard to save lives.tamarind:
...I want to clarify that I did not start this thread to suggest a segregation of the \"gifted\" from the \"rest\". In fact, I have written in earlier posts that I do not think that the GEP is a good program. ...
And I think what you have done is to give everyone amazing insight into the real challenges of parenting gifted children - that it is not about parading children in front of the media as super-kids, but really about how to ensure you do the right things (and do not do the wrong things) so that these children can grow up as well adjusted individuals ready to make a contribution to our society.
My concern stems from how the expectations that we place on these children may actually backfire on us if we make them feel that they are special and superior to other children through official classification. I have had relatives who died from cancer, so I'd be amongst those that would kiss the feet of anyone who can defeat such a terrible disease, but it's a big hat for ANYONE to wear. Not only must the person be gifted, he must also understand the pain suffered by cancer victims and their families. The search for the cure for cancer should not be one for bragging rights and commercial gains, but rooted on the burning intrinsic desire of wanting to save humanity from such suffering. That takes compassion, which is a quality I felt is being neglected by authorities in their eagerness to identify and groom gifted children to maximize their potential to \"benefit\" Singapore so as not to \"waste\" their talents. In fact, I feel that most Singaporeans think that compassion is just about giving money to the needy.
So I'm personally grateful that you have started this very useful thread. It has captured some very deep thoughts from lots of people regarding the issue of giftedness and how best to manage it. Giftedness is definitely not a bad word - it is a blessing from God, afterall.
Thank you!
After my auntie died, her daughter emailed me and wrote that cancer seems to run in the family. I am going to tests every year now.
I tried to explain to my daughter about my father's illness, and the genius and compassion of the surgeon who operated on him. Hopefully she will understand.
My girl told me that her teacher always say that she is clever. One day, her teacher said \"Wow you are so clever, you don't need to come to school\". I was unhappy with that comment, I did not think that it was appropriate. Fortunately my girl told me she knew very well that the teacher was only joking. I always tell my girl that there are many other kids who are more clever than her. 一山还有一山高. It is not right to make any gifted or bright kid feel superior. -
1. And in that regard, the problems we in Singapore have with gifted elitism are not limited to Singapore. It really arises from the term \"gifted\", implying that there the rest of us are therefore \"ungifted\". The most neutral term I have seen in trying to address this is \"neuro-typical\" vs \"gifted\" rather than \"ungifted\" vs \"gifted\". But obviously, even the international gifted community feels badly enough about this exclusionist implication to want to come up with a neutral term.
2. I did read it. There may be \"serious questions [raised] regarding the uses and limits of such testing\", (I did say the tests are narrowly focused, no?) but there is no choice. This is the only means available for identification of gifted individuals that will give you a standardized, objective and numerical score that can be compared across the population base and over time.
The article you pointed out says:
\"Many schools use a variety of measures of students' capability and potential when identifying gifted children. These may include portfolios of student work, classroom observations, achievement measures, and intelligence scores .... no single measure can be used in isolation to accurately identify a gifted child.\"
But they then go on to devote the rest of the section on IQ test scores and standard deviations, for the same reasons that I highlighted.
You don't have to take my word for it and you can certainly differ from the thinking out there. But there are good reasons why the MOE takes the scores seriously, beyond school results, student portfolios and observation.
3. I think you mistake the term giftedness for talent development. Teaching is akin to talent development, which we must do for the population at large. We owe it to society to develop every child according to his or her talent, including gifted children. -
Peronally, I think special programs like GEP is necssary ..just like sports school, La Selle etc We need an avenue and a choice for kids with special abilities in certain areas to develop to their fullest.
This controversy is aggravated when you have GEP+Kiasu-ism together. Practically every parents want their kids to excel, to be somehow better than themselves (yes, I am guilty of that too). I guess it's a homo sapien instinct to evolve...but carried to the extreme in our Singaporean context, we are now also hearing that we need to be ahead of the pack to survive ..because we do not have natural resources. In the pursue of excellence and survival, compassion and grace have unfortunately taken a backseat.
So I would like to exhort all KSPs not to debate the definition of Giftedness anymore. What is more important is to consider if we had done the right things for our children. Contrary to what the name of this webby insinuate, I have become more enlightened and less KS since I started coming to this forum. Seriously, this KSP.com label doesnt do us justice.
-
heutistmeintag:
Peronally, I think special programs like GEP is necssary ..just like sports school, La Selle etc We need an avenue and a choice for kids with special abilities in certain areas to develop to their fullest.
This controversy is aggravated when you have GEP+Kiasu-ism together. Practically every parents want their kids to excel, to be somehow better than themselves (yes, I am guilty of that too). I guess it's a homo sapien instinct to evolve...but carried to the extreme in our Singaporean context, we are now also hearing that we need to be ahead of the pack to survive ..because we do not have natural resources. In the pursue of excellence and survival, compassion and grace have unfortunately taken a backseat.
So I would like to exhort all KSPs not to debate the definition of Giftedness anymore. What is more important is to consider if we had done the right things for our children. Contrary to what the name of this webby insinuate, I have become more enlightened and less KS since I started coming to this forum. Seriously, this KSP.com label doesnt do us justice.
Ya huh. The discussion is losing it's meaning. I did have fun though! :lol:
-
breguet:
1. And in that regard, the problems we in Singapore have with gifted elitism are not limited to Singapore. It really arises from the term \"gifted\", implying that there the rest of us are therefore \"ungifted\". The most neutral term I have seen in trying to address this is \"neuro-typical\" vs \"gifted\" rather than \"ungifted\" vs \"gifted\". But obviously, even the international gifted community feels badly enough about this exclusionist implication to want to come up with a neutral term.
2. I did read it. There may be \"serious questions [raised] regarding the uses and limits of such testing\", (I did say the tests are narrowly focused, no?) but there is no choice. This is the only means available for identification of gifted individuals that will give you a standardized, objective and numerical score that can be compared across the population base and over time.
The article you pointed out says:
\"Many schools use a variety of measures of students' capability and potential when identifying gifted children. These may include portfolios of student work, classroom observations, achievement measures, and intelligence scores .... no single measure can be used in isolation to accurately identify a gifted child.\"
But they then go on to devote the rest of the section on IQ test scores and standard deviations, for the same reasons that I highlighted.
You don't have to take my word for it and you can certainly differ from the thinking out there. But there are good reasons why the MOE takes the scores seriously, beyond school results, student portfolios and observation.
3. I think you mistake the term giftedness for talent development. Teaching is akin to talent development, which we must do for the population at large. We owe it to society to develop every child according to his or her talent, including gifted children.
I don't think there is anything wrong with using the word gifted. I don't see the point in arguing. It is perfectly OK for others to have a different opinion.
I think the parents know their kid's abilities best. There is no need to care about the opinions of the international gifted community. As I wrote earlier, Mozart is highly gifted in music, but do you think he will pass the IQ test with high scores ? Personally I do not think that MOE is always doing the right thing.
I think you mistaken what I mean about giftedness and teaching. The whole point of this thread is for parents of gifted children to share how they teach and develop the child. For example, drilling and cramming may be good for normal kids, but these methods may have bad effects for gifted children, killing their interest for learning. Not sure whether you are getting this point. -
This article is about how to identify a gifted child, and signs of giftedness in infants.
http://giftedkids.about.com/od/gifted101/p/how_to_identify.htm -
This story was first published in The Straits Times on July 16, 2008.
Identify gifted children in kindergarten, says expert
THE professor whose ideas are the basis of Singapore's gifted education programme said schools should start identifying potential high-fliers as early as kindergarten.
The head start would allow pupils to be challenged and help them achieve more in the long run, said Professor Francoys Gagne.
'I'm not talking about pushing them,' he said on Monday at the Asia-Pacific Conference for Giftedness, which brought together participants from 29 countries.
'It is about letting them learn at a suitable pace. If they don't want to go far, we won't push them,' he said.
Schools now wait until the end of Primary 3 before they start sifting out gifted pupils.
But discovering top pupils at five or six years old would help educators tailor a more challenging programme for them, he said.
'If you want to go to the Olympics, you better start early and be good rapidly,' said Prof Gagne, who was a former member of the Psychology Department at the University of Quebec at Montreal.
'What kind of impact this will have 20 years later I have no idea. But just giving them a more satisfying school life is good enough for me,' he said.
No everyone is sold on the idea though.
Early childhood education expert and founder of Pat's Schoolhouse Patricia Koh, who has a Master of Arts in Child Development, said gifted children should not be sifted out at kindergarten.
She said: 'I would rather not segregate or determine the giftedness of a child at such a young age.
'Most children in early years have the potential to be gifted and should be nurtured in all areas. There is no need to put them in a special class. Even the home can be the environment to nurture giftedness.'
Prof Gagne has spent almost three decades studying gifted children.
He developed a model that differentiated between gifts - natural abilities that develop at a young age - and talents - which are the product of intervention.
His model formed the basic tenets of the Gifted Education Programme in Singapore, which was launched in 1984.
Prof Gagne, currently a writer and consultant, said some children can show signs of being gifted in language or music as young as two.
He does not rule out putting young children in an accelerated programme.
'The system has been built for an average learner. The top one-third of pupils are not getting the same type of challenge the slower learners are getting,' he said.
Some educators have complained that allowing a child to learn in classes beyond his years may be emotionally and socially harmful.
But Prof Gagne said 'there's no scientific evidence support about worries for acceleration'.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login