Any parents of gifted children here ?
-
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'. -
heutistmeintag:
We cannot deny the fact that there are many kiasu parents in Singapore. That is why I think that the GEP is not a good program. There are many parents who think that they can drill and cram the child to get into the GEP. If the child failed to get in, he is being made to think that he is not good enough. This really has a bad effect on his self esteem.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.
The education system changes all the time in Singapore. Like the streaming in primary school which has been scrapped and replaced by subject-based banding. It seems to me that MOE is always experimenting. Are they so sure that what they are doing is right ? I would not be surprised if the next Minister of Education decides to scrap the GEP.
I just read this very well written comment on the Straits Times Forum :
http://www.straitstimes.com/Free/Story/STIStory_179897.html
I found out a little from Canadian parents about how the Canadian equivalent of 'GEP' works. Essentially, it's done very unobtrusively. At the end of regular school-days, some kids go off for 'extras'. There's no fanfare, no attention drawn to these kids, they don't talk much about it in the community and there's hardly any discernable angst about it. In contrast, a close relative's kid over here (with IQ score 150) fought tooth-&-nail with her over getting into GEP, saying:\"You know mom, whether or not I get into GEP is really MY decision, and you cannot pressure me into it!\" I'm not saying that this happens with every GEP kid, but the kind of societal aspirations bearing on parents & kids alike makes this kind of scenario not unexpected, and I suspect it's played out in many families in various degrees over other academic tests & exams.
Why do you get kids crying after PSLE math papers? Canadians for example, that I know, say they can't ever imagine this happening in their country (except perhaps with the very recent new immigrants, but even then it would stand out as an odd, misguided aberration). It is very very disturbing and a symptom of serious disease in either our education or our society that learning is such a heavy burden & trauma-inducing experience in young kids. It matters too much whether our kids do well in school or not. And I don't agree that we must put our kids through a harsh system or else they'll be too 'soft' for the real world out there. Despite our famously competitive education system, Singaporeans are still prevalently seen as naive, un-streetwise, and 'ready-to-be-eaten', in the Asian business community. And at the graduate & post-graduate levels, Singapore is under-represented globally if you compare it to our apparent global brilliance at the elementary & high-school levels. Does this mean that the way our kids learn at the elementary & high-school levels does not translate into outstanding thinking abilities at the adult level--which is what really matters for the society? And you don't find parents from 1st world nations sending their kids to study in Singapore. As a society that values excellence, we should be looking into these perspectives as helping us to see where we can improve, rather than finding ways to rebut them so as to reassure ourselves or to pat ourselves on the back. -
Yes, if only identifying starts earlier, my son will not be so hurt by the teacher telling him to sit & not answer any more questions even though none of the class mate has the answer. How does my son feels being totally ignored because he reads too much & remember what he reads?
If only identification starts early, the teacher will not have feedback that my son dont trust her teaching when in fact he just wants to understand the whole concept of density & not just cork will float & metal will sink.
If only identification starts early, I would not have ignored my son request to study (he was 3) & told him to play quietly so that I can teach my elder daughter instead.
If only identification starts early, then I will not think that my daughter is slow & my son is normal. Err... normal kids will enjoy cartoon as much as they enjoy National Geographic Channel?
If only identification starts early, then my daughter will not get my glare when at primary 3 she should be able to define mammals but the little brother defines it prefectly along with animals that does not fits the description but are still considered mammals.
Here is some interesting articles that I come across:
http://www.hoagiesgifted.org/all_children.htm -
[quote]The education system changes all the time in Singapore. Like the streaming in primary school which has been scrapped and replaced by subject-based banding. It seems to me that MOE is always experimenting. Are they so sure that what they are doing is right ? I would not be surprised if the next Minister of Education decides to scrap the GEP.
[/quote]As what you have said, education system changes all the time. From the time I went to school and the time my girl went to school, the systems has been very different. It gets more difficult as time go by. The MOE might not scrape the GEP, they will modified and improved the system.
Even the primary school that you have plan to send your girl, they too adopt the GEP kind of teaching and only targets the top 20% of each cohort. Have anyone ever think, what if my child dun fall in the top 20%, then what type of programe are offer to my child? I know a mother who has a problem child, he just cannot excel in his works and is currently place in the bottom class of the cohort. The teacher told the mother that if her child fail his final year exam, they will have no choice but place him in the programe similiar to the EM3. I feel sad for her.
I remembered an article written in the Sunday Time, a parent quoted something like this \"every parents tried to get their child a place in the most popular school and forget the ability and capability of the child.\" :roll:
The kids that are placed in the GEP are no different from any ten years old. They also forget to hang in their homeworks, missed their deadline for projects, fail their tests, stay back for remedial, misbehave and get complain from their teacher. Everyone thinks they are different just because they are top 1%.
One will really know and understand the good and bad of the GEP when you have kids in the programe. Whether the child is gifted or not, building the child charater is still the most important.
I too agreed with CKS, \"EVERYTHING is a phase and will pass!\" Who knows the GEP kid maybe one of your child classmate in the JC. :roll: -
heutistmeintag:
I agree its necessary to have programs like GEP cos without it, the truly gifted kids will be left with nothing! They will be forced to languish in classrooms that cater to the majority of kids. Their potential will never be realised and they will just totally give up and 'switch off' mentally. What I have grouse about is that the GEP program starts way too late at P4. Many of these kids will have 'switch off' by that time and it will be just too late for them. The schools have special programs that cater to special needs children like the dyslexic and autistic right from the beginning but why not for gifted kids? If you think about it, they are special needs too. It is sad, really sad.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.
I also agree that the GEP program is in such controversy now because of the KS mentality of some parents who try all ways and means of making sure their kids get in because of the so-called 'prestige' factor. But isn't it true that some of the top PSLE pupils do not come from the GEP program? To me, the GEP program, by right, should cater to the different learning needs of these children which are not met in the normal classroom.
Maybe the MOE should lower the profile of the program, like make it 'underground' so that it is less contentious? And the program should really start at P1 in my humble opinion. Im sure all the parents here with these kids will agree with me - the kids will be spared most of the confidence and self-esteem problems they faced in school and will be much happier.
Re compassion and grace, these should be largely taught at home. We should not put all blame on the school because our children are not compassionate or graceful, should we?
Re feeling superior, it also depends on what is being taught at home. We never told our boy that he is gifted or cleverer than the other children. In fact, we didn't even tell my in-laws about it. We always tell him that everybody has their own strengths, like his friend may not be good at reading but he's good at running. What is most impt is to do one's best. -
gifted:
From what I read, West Grove offers the high ability students extra classes in more advanced maths, research, etc. These students continue to attend normal classes with other medium/low ability kids every day. This is very different from the gifted program, where the kids attend \"special\" classes every day. Kids in the gifted program are separated from other kids of \"lower ability\", and in a way they seem to be more superior than others.
Even the primary school that you have plan to send your girl, they too adopt the GEP kind of teaching and only targets the top 20% of each cohort. Have anyone ever think, what if my child dun fall in the top 20%, then what type of programe are offer to my child? I know a mother who has a problem child, he just cannot excel in his works and is currently place in the bottom class of the cohort. The teacher told the mother that if her child fail his final year exam, they will have no choice but place him in the programe similiar to the EM3. I feel sad for her.
West Grove also has extra classes for the low ability students, to help them catch up with other students. They have special classes for students who cannot read at P1. They have parent volunteers to help teach these students.wwcookie:
I don't agree. My older brother studied in a \"no name\" primary school. He got into Raffles Institution. He was known as the \"maths genius\" in RJC, and he eventually won a scholarship to study in a prestigious university in UK, and returned as the top Singaporean student. Both my parents had never attended school before, and were unable to help him at all. At that time, there were no GEP and no streaming. He owe his academic success to the gift he was born with, as well as the education system in Singapore which gives all students, whether rich or poor, a chance to excel. That is why I feel that the GEP is not necessary.I agree its necessary to have programs like GEP cos without it, the truly gifted kids will be left with nothing! They will be forced to languish in classrooms that cater to the majority of kids. Their potential will never be realised and they will just totally give up and 'switch off' mentally.
wwcookie:
I agree that MOE should lower the profile of the program. The model in Canada which I posted earlier, is a low profile and unobtrusive program, which I hope that MOE will adopt.Maybe the MOE should lower the profile of the program, like make it 'underground' so that it is less contentious? And the program should really start at P1 in my humble opinion. Im sure all the parents here with these kids will agree with me - the kids will be spared most of the confidence and self-esteem problems they faced in school and will be much happier.
EN:
If the system can properly identify gifted kids at a young age, then at least the kids can have teachers who are trained to handle them in a sensitive and understanding manner. But the tough part is how to identify them. Some kids may even refused to be tested.Yes, if only identifying starts earlier, my son will not be so hurt by the teacher telling him to sit & not answer any more questions even though none of the class mate has the answer. How does my son feels being totally ignored because he reads too much & remember what he reads?
-
wwcookie wrote: [quote]Re compassion and grace, these should be largely taught at home. We should not put all blame on the school because our children are not compassionate or graceful, should we?
Re feeling superior, it also depends on what is being taught at home. We never told our boy that he is gifted or cleverer than the other children. In fact, we didn't even tell my in-laws about it. We always tell him that everybody has their own strengths, like his friend may not be good at reading but he's good at running. What is most impt is to do one's best.[/quote]I totally agree with wwcookie. Compassion and grace should starts from home. School helps to reinforce but parents should set good eg.
As for my son feeling superior than others, just like wwcookie, we never tell him that he is different. And yes, in-laws & friends does not know it either. Those who knows (classmate's parents, teachers, neighbours, close friends) happen to notice as they are close by in his every day lives. -
tamarind wrote:
[quote]From what I read, West Grove offers the high ability students extra classes in more advanced maths, research, etc. These students continue to attend normal classes with other medium/low ability kids every day. This is very different from the gifted program, where the kids attend \"special\" classes every day. Kids in the gifted program are separated from other kids of \"lower ability\", and in a way they seem to be more superior than others.
West Grove also has extra classes for the low ability students, to help them catch up with other students. They have special classes for students who cannot read at P1. They have parent volunteers to help teach these students. [/quote]Hi tamarind,
Please dun get offended. If you have kids in the P2 or higher level, you will properly know after finishing P1, the top 5% will be single out and put in the top class and they are also mixed with children with \"high ability\" just like themselve only. Is only the recent Banding system allow them to mix. But how many of this \"lower ability\" student get the chance??? No one know.
I just want stressed that the GEP kids are just normal kids like yours and mine. Dun label them like some people use to label children from EM3.
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