Labels (Was: Dealing with Christmas Expectations and Anticipation)
Pam Sorooshian
I have a couple of things I want to say about the label, "gifted," and then
something about Aspergers and the idea of labeling in general.
I was a so-called gifted student, myself, growing up in the 50's and 60's,
pulled out for special classes and activities, and then I was very involved
in gifted education in the 80's and early 90's with my own children. I
attended conferences, was a member of the California Association for the
Gifted, parent rep on our district's council for the gifted, and so on. I
lobbied Sacramento for more resources for the gifted. My older daughters
were in school for a while and both were in gifted programs. I know a whole
lot about the reasons for having gifted programs in school and how it has
developed and been carried out over the past decades.
The official definition of "gifted" in the federal Elementary and Secondary
School Act is:
"Students, children, or youth who give evidence of high achievement
capability in areas such as intellectual, creative, artistic, or leadership
capacity, or in specific academic fields, and who need services and
activities not ordinarily provided by the school in order to fully develop
those capabilities."
In other words, the very definition of "gifted" is that regular school is
not enough to support a child in developing to his/her full (exceptionally
high) individual potential. Outside of school, this definition really has
little practical meaning since every homeschooled child can supported to
work up to his/her own individual potential. As stated by the National
Association for Gifted Children:
"*Educating each person at a certain age in the same way is like giving
everyone the same size shoe: While a size 7 shoe may be wearable for a
short time by people who need a size 6 or 8, at some point the shoe just
doesn�t fit. Similarly, at some point, a standard education just doesn�t
fit certain children. In those cases, a label is often required so that
these students can receive an appropriate education.*"
Lip-service is paid to the idea that "giftedness" may be in areas other
than just intellectual (creative, artistic, leadership, or specific
academic fields). But, in my extensive experience, there is very very
seldom any identification method that goes beyond some sort of
testing/teacher recommendation based on intellect alone. Typically, schools
test about 10 percent of their students (based on teacher recommendations)
and from 2 to 8 percent (the actual percentage varies depending on the
available budget) are "identified" as gifted.
For children who are especially poor fits in school, a "gifted" program of
some sort might make a huge difference in their experience. In the cases of
both of my older daughters, however, the gifted programs were actually MORE
boring and made them much more miserable than their regular classroom
experience.
So we pulled them out. And, we quickly realized that the "gifted" label was
not only unhelpful, but potentially harmful, once we were no longer using
it to fight for a greater share of school resources.
As homeschoolers/unschoolers, it no longer made any sense at all to compare
one child to another. And that is ALL that the label is - a comparison.
Again, from the National Association for the Gifted:
*"When we say that someone is gifted it compares their capacity to learn
and apply what they learn to that of their same-aged-peers."*
As unschoolers, our children are not constrained to learn from a curriculum
that has been prepared to supposedly meet the needs of a typical child. So
this idea of children having differing "capacities" is irrelevant.
The lists of characteristics of "gifted" children are lists of all kinds of
characteristics that humans may exhibit. Intense, inquisitive, emotional,
sensitive, empathetic, eclectic, focused..... Most parents reading those
lists will manage to find their own child described in some of the items in
the same ways people find themselves in the descriptions of their
astrological signs. Those with particularly intense kids will be especially
convinced.
I think it can be comforting for those with what my grandmother (a teacher)
would have called "high-strung" kids, to read the descriptions and think of
them as the characteristics of being gifted. There is pride and a
"not-my-fault" relief.
But there are risks - real ones - of labeling a child as gifted. The label
can often be used as an excuse for poor behavior. Parents can have a "well,
she's gifted, what can we do," attitude. Very often, it means parents don't
look at the specifics of a problem, they just chalk it up to a child's
giftedness. That label can be a veil through which the parent sees the
child rather than seeing the child more directly and clearly. A parent
thinks, "Oh look, intense emotional reaction - a symptom of her
giftedness," rather than really looking at why the child is having that
reaction.
The label reduces the child...it discounts the real complex and totally
individual person he/she is.
And, it can mislead - it says, "Your child is gifted and gifted children
need......" and you might be just sure that, being gifted, that must be
exactly what your child needs. But you could be wrong. Your child is so
much more than that list of characteristics - so much more an individual.
Again, the label can be a veil that comes between a parent and their fully
real individual child.
There is so much difference between gifted children that lumping them
together does each a disservice.
Which brings me to a quote from a very interesting article about Aspergers
Syndrome: *"If you've seen one Aspie, you've seen one Aspie." *
The article is called: "Aspergers theory does about-face," and says: "People
with Asperger's syndrome, a high functioning form of autism, are often
stereotyped as distant loners or robotic geeks. But what if what looks like
coldness to the outside world is a response to being overwhelmed by emotion
� an excess of empathy, not a lack of it?"
In other words, the characteristic most indelibly associated with the
label, Apsergers, (lack of empathy) might be flat-out wrong. Wrong. And the
assumption may have led to all KINDS of inappropriate treatments of
children by teachers and parents who believed/assumed their child lacked
empathy because that's what the experts said.
The article is here: http://www.healthzone.ca/health/article/633688.
Unschoolers can afford to ignore the labels and look directly at their own
individual real child. We can think for ourselves about what our child
needs from us. Letting go of labels is a really important part of the
process of learning to think for ourselves.
Maybe those who still see value in the labels could try an experiment - try
to think, talk, respond, and interact with your child for a month without
using the label. Don't let it enter your head at all. If it does, your
month starts over! <G> I think you might be surprised at how difficult it
is (if you've been invested in the label for a while). Every time you think
"gifted," stop and substitute a more specific term that describes your own
particular child. I think you'll find it a valuable exercise that will help
you understand your own child even better than you do and it will probably
bring you closer. I bet your child will notice it - even though he/she may
not know what is different.
-pam
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
something about Aspergers and the idea of labeling in general.
I was a so-called gifted student, myself, growing up in the 50's and 60's,
pulled out for special classes and activities, and then I was very involved
in gifted education in the 80's and early 90's with my own children. I
attended conferences, was a member of the California Association for the
Gifted, parent rep on our district's council for the gifted, and so on. I
lobbied Sacramento for more resources for the gifted. My older daughters
were in school for a while and both were in gifted programs. I know a whole
lot about the reasons for having gifted programs in school and how it has
developed and been carried out over the past decades.
The official definition of "gifted" in the federal Elementary and Secondary
School Act is:
"Students, children, or youth who give evidence of high achievement
capability in areas such as intellectual, creative, artistic, or leadership
capacity, or in specific academic fields, and who need services and
activities not ordinarily provided by the school in order to fully develop
those capabilities."
In other words, the very definition of "gifted" is that regular school is
not enough to support a child in developing to his/her full (exceptionally
high) individual potential. Outside of school, this definition really has
little practical meaning since every homeschooled child can supported to
work up to his/her own individual potential. As stated by the National
Association for Gifted Children:
"*Educating each person at a certain age in the same way is like giving
everyone the same size shoe: While a size 7 shoe may be wearable for a
short time by people who need a size 6 or 8, at some point the shoe just
doesn�t fit. Similarly, at some point, a standard education just doesn�t
fit certain children. In those cases, a label is often required so that
these students can receive an appropriate education.*"
Lip-service is paid to the idea that "giftedness" may be in areas other
than just intellectual (creative, artistic, leadership, or specific
academic fields). But, in my extensive experience, there is very very
seldom any identification method that goes beyond some sort of
testing/teacher recommendation based on intellect alone. Typically, schools
test about 10 percent of their students (based on teacher recommendations)
and from 2 to 8 percent (the actual percentage varies depending on the
available budget) are "identified" as gifted.
For children who are especially poor fits in school, a "gifted" program of
some sort might make a huge difference in their experience. In the cases of
both of my older daughters, however, the gifted programs were actually MORE
boring and made them much more miserable than their regular classroom
experience.
So we pulled them out. And, we quickly realized that the "gifted" label was
not only unhelpful, but potentially harmful, once we were no longer using
it to fight for a greater share of school resources.
As homeschoolers/unschoolers, it no longer made any sense at all to compare
one child to another. And that is ALL that the label is - a comparison.
Again, from the National Association for the Gifted:
*"When we say that someone is gifted it compares their capacity to learn
and apply what they learn to that of their same-aged-peers."*
As unschoolers, our children are not constrained to learn from a curriculum
that has been prepared to supposedly meet the needs of a typical child. So
this idea of children having differing "capacities" is irrelevant.
The lists of characteristics of "gifted" children are lists of all kinds of
characteristics that humans may exhibit. Intense, inquisitive, emotional,
sensitive, empathetic, eclectic, focused..... Most parents reading those
lists will manage to find their own child described in some of the items in
the same ways people find themselves in the descriptions of their
astrological signs. Those with particularly intense kids will be especially
convinced.
I think it can be comforting for those with what my grandmother (a teacher)
would have called "high-strung" kids, to read the descriptions and think of
them as the characteristics of being gifted. There is pride and a
"not-my-fault" relief.
But there are risks - real ones - of labeling a child as gifted. The label
can often be used as an excuse for poor behavior. Parents can have a "well,
she's gifted, what can we do," attitude. Very often, it means parents don't
look at the specifics of a problem, they just chalk it up to a child's
giftedness. That label can be a veil through which the parent sees the
child rather than seeing the child more directly and clearly. A parent
thinks, "Oh look, intense emotional reaction - a symptom of her
giftedness," rather than really looking at why the child is having that
reaction.
The label reduces the child...it discounts the real complex and totally
individual person he/she is.
And, it can mislead - it says, "Your child is gifted and gifted children
need......" and you might be just sure that, being gifted, that must be
exactly what your child needs. But you could be wrong. Your child is so
much more than that list of characteristics - so much more an individual.
Again, the label can be a veil that comes between a parent and their fully
real individual child.
There is so much difference between gifted children that lumping them
together does each a disservice.
Which brings me to a quote from a very interesting article about Aspergers
Syndrome: *"If you've seen one Aspie, you've seen one Aspie." *
The article is called: "Aspergers theory does about-face," and says: "People
with Asperger's syndrome, a high functioning form of autism, are often
stereotyped as distant loners or robotic geeks. But what if what looks like
coldness to the outside world is a response to being overwhelmed by emotion
� an excess of empathy, not a lack of it?"
In other words, the characteristic most indelibly associated with the
label, Apsergers, (lack of empathy) might be flat-out wrong. Wrong. And the
assumption may have led to all KINDS of inappropriate treatments of
children by teachers and parents who believed/assumed their child lacked
empathy because that's what the experts said.
The article is here: http://www.healthzone.ca/health/article/633688.
Unschoolers can afford to ignore the labels and look directly at their own
individual real child. We can think for ourselves about what our child
needs from us. Letting go of labels is a really important part of the
process of learning to think for ourselves.
Maybe those who still see value in the labels could try an experiment - try
to think, talk, respond, and interact with your child for a month without
using the label. Don't let it enter your head at all. If it does, your
month starts over! <G> I think you might be surprised at how difficult it
is (if you've been invested in the label for a while). Every time you think
"gifted," stop and substitute a more specific term that describes your own
particular child. I think you'll find it a valuable exercise that will help
you understand your own child even better than you do and it will probably
bring you closer. I bet your child will notice it - even though he/she may
not know what is different.
-pam
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
The Pommies
I have been following this whole thread with great interest. My ten year old son sounds just like the OP's daughter around Christmas and birthdays, and dealing with his anticipation is challenging for sure. What I find most fascinating was that my son was labelled ADHD, ODD, and CAPD years ago but displays the characteristics that some have described in this thread for 'giftedness'. I felt the labels then, and now, are nonsense, but this just reaffirms that. It seems a child in school who doesn't want to pay attention sometimes, gets easily distracted, becomes disruptive, has intense emotions and obsessions - can be labelled at one end as having learning difficulties like 'ADHD', or 'gifted' because they are bored and need more stimulation.
If I had my time again I wouldn't have had him assessed as the labels have been unhelpful to us, and it took a long time for us to move past them. We have now, but it has affected the way our extended family see him. To them, we are unschooling because Jack has 'problems' and can't 'cope' with going to school. There is a feeling that they feel sorry for him and us and they view our path as a necessity not a choice. It's not true of course, and I don't like the fact they think this, but I can't change it. I wonder if he had been labelled 'gifted' instead what our parents reactions would have been - probably a lot of pride like Pam said. Go figure!!
-Chay.
If I had my time again I wouldn't have had him assessed as the labels have been unhelpful to us, and it took a long time for us to move past them. We have now, but it has affected the way our extended family see him. To them, we are unschooling because Jack has 'problems' and can't 'cope' with going to school. There is a feeling that they feel sorry for him and us and they view our path as a necessity not a choice. It's not true of course, and I don't like the fact they think this, but I can't change it. I wonder if he had been labelled 'gifted' instead what our parents reactions would have been - probably a lot of pride like Pam said. Go figure!!
-Chay.
Amy Estersohn
Ha! I somehow made it from the special ed pullout program to the gifted pullout program in 3 years. Blessed that my parents didn't think of me any differently for it.
On Dec 28, 2011, at 3:34 PM, "The Pommies" <thepommies@...> wrote:
>
> I have been following this whole thread with great interest. My ten year old son sounds just like the OP's daughter around Christmas and birthdays, and dealing with his anticipation is challenging for sure. What I find most fascinating was that my son was labelled ADHD, ODD, and CAPD years ago but displays the characteristics that some have described in this thread for 'giftedness'. I felt the labels then, and now, are nonsense, but this just reaffirms that. It seems a child in school who doesn't want to pay attention sometimes, gets easily distracted, becomes disruptive, has intense emotions and obsessions - can be labelled at one end as having learning difficulties like 'ADHD', or 'gifted' because they are bored and need more stimulation.
>
> If I had my time again I wouldn't have had him assessed as the labels have been unhelpful to us, and it took a long time for us to move past them. We have now, but it has affected the way our extended family see him. To them, we are unschooling because Jack has 'problems' and can't 'cope' with going to school. There is a feeling that they feel sorry for him and us and they view our path as a necessity not a choice. It's not true of course, and I don't like the fact they think this, but I can't change it. I wonder if he had been labelled 'gifted' instead what our parents reactions would have been - probably a lot of pride like Pam said. Go figure!!
>
> -Chay.
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]