Mar 9 2011: I can understand your point of view, and agree with much of it, though my experience, my daughter's experience, and my father's experience have been a bit different. Left to our own devices our extreme boredom and the bullying that goes on (because oh yes, kids DO know) led each of us to dangerously low self esteem and extreme risk-seeking behavior including delinquent behaviors (you name it), life-threatening behaviors (you name it), and dropping out of school. For the sake of these kids identification and intervention is ideal at an early age.
Mar 9 2011: To be sure, I'm not a fan of the 'gifted' nomenclature. 'gifted' implies 'by God', and therefore it does not perfectly fit everyone's needs. My husband adds, "It implies that something is given with no expectation of return." This may very well be the source of charges of elitism.
But unfortunately for the anti-label contingent, I can't call my kids BOB and expect them to receive the accommodation from the school board that they so desperately need.
I wonder if the queer community has a body of literature that could be mined for the development and embracing of terminology that serves a genetic minority population. In common parlance we've recently embraced 'geek' and 'nerd'. As profs, we call our bright kids 'keeners'. But obviously these won't work for an identification and placement committee.
On the other hand, perhaps we can embrace 'gifted' instead of running off to hide because it makes others feel bad. Advocate and educate the public that gifted = special needs, and that gifted kids are students who are at-risk without social interaction with like children and space to develop intellectually despite our frequently comorbid issues (ASD, emotional delays, depression, anxiety, ADHD, LD, and Tourette's to name a few that show up frequently.) The gay and lesbian population didn't run away from 'queer'. They educated and advocated, and they continue to do so quite effectively. It's a long road, and we may be shooting ourselves in the foot by abandoning it.
TEDCred score: +0.20 TEDCred reflects your contribution to the TED community.
A reply on Conversation: If 'gifted' is a bad word, what term can we use to describe the highly intelligent and creative members of our societies?
A reply on Conversation: If 'gifted' is a bad word, what term can we use to describe the highly intelligent and creative members of our societies?
A comment on Conversation: If 'gifted' is a bad word, what term can we use to describe the highly intelligent and creative members of our societies?
But unfortunately for the anti-label contingent, I can't call my kids BOB and expect them to receive the accommodation from the school board that they so desperately need.
I wonder if the queer community has a body of literature that could be mined for the development and embracing of terminology that serves a genetic minority population. In common parlance we've recently embraced 'geek' and 'nerd'. As profs, we call our bright kids 'keeners'. But obviously these won't work for an identification and placement committee.
On the other hand, perhaps we can embrace 'gifted' instead of running off to hide because it makes others feel bad. Advocate and educate the public that gifted = special needs, and that gifted kids are students who are at-risk without social interaction with like children and space to develop intellectually despite our frequently comorbid issues (ASD, emotional delays, depression, anxiety, ADHD, LD, and Tourette's to name a few that show up frequently.) The gay and lesbian population didn't run away from 'queer'. They educated and advocated, and they continue to do so quite effectively. It's a long road, and we may be shooting ourselves in the foot by abandoning it.