**
Dear Readers,
Where to begin?
Yesterday’s post obviously hit a lot of nerves. I sincerely apologize to those who felt belittled or dismissed by my words. You have a point. A significant one in fact. And as I said last night, I am grateful to those who took the time to respectfully educate me.
In many ways, I hate moments like yesterday. I can’t stand feeling as if I’ve done or said something that in no way fits in with the way that I want to live my life. For a couple of minutes at the end of the day, I was tempted to take the post down and run for the hills. However, that’s not my style. And importantly, I have found that it’s those moments in my life in which I learn something. Growing out of our long-held perceptions isn’t always easy. But it’s what I ask others to do every day. I can imagine nothing more hypocritical than refusing to do the same.
Until yesterday, I could not have begun to understand the full scope of challenge that are faced by some academically advanced kids. Until we are shown anything different, we have no other way to look at life than through the filter of our own experiences. My experience with ‘gifted’ kids was apparently pretty limited. Which is somewhat ironic, because I was one. But in reading your comments yesterday, it became painfully obvious that my experience was not representative of – well, much more than my own experience.
Like some of you who commented, (and undoubtedly many of you who are reading now) I was labeled ‘gifted’ at a young age. The school system in which I spent my early education wasn’t quite sure how to handle my academic appetite, beginning with my demands to be taught to read at age four. Ultimately, the solution that they settled on was to take me out of kindergarten and to put me into first grade. I was five years old throughout the entirety of my first grade year.
Despite being a year and a half to two years younger than my peers, for the most part I remained bored and easily distracted in school. I remember dramatically failing a basic aptitude test in third grade. When the school called my parents in to discuss it, they asked to see the test. What had happened was immediately obvious to everyone involved – the computerized answer key was filled out in an interlocking pattern of swirls. When my parents came home and questioned me, I said simply, “I thought it was pretty. I was bored.”
I was quickly taught that there were certain things in life that we simply have to slog through, boring or not. But I will tell you that to this day, EVERY single time I fill in those computerized dots, I’m awfully tempted.
I tell you this to try to explain where I was coming from yesterday. For me – and ONLY me – no generalizations here – being ‘gifted’ simply meant being younger than my peers and a little bored. It meant that I read a lot and was able to slide by with a minimum of effort (which was, much to my parents’ dismay, precisely what I did.)
It had it’s downside, of course, mostly in terms of my age. Add in my height (or pretty dramatic lack thereof), and I certainly stood out. In many ways I was behind my peers socially. I certainly didn’t start ‘dating’ – even in the strictly euphemistic sense – until long after my friends.
Heading off to college at sixteen turned out to be mildly disastrous. That tale was told by a trail of unpaid credit card bills, totaled cars, academic probation and – eventually, a two-and-a-half year hiatus to get myself together before returning to graduate. The bottom line was that, while I may have been academically ready, I was nowhere near emotionally ready for life beyond high school.
However, I have never looked back on my experience and felt that being ‘gifted’ had in and of itself been a source of challenge for me. I do remember being teased, but as I remember it, it was always good-natured and it always came from friends. It is altogether possible that I am fully delusional and the people around me were cruel, but my memory’s all I got, and my memory is pretty rosy.
And so, this brings me to yesterday’s post. When the woman with whom I had the conversation about the Inclusion Committee asked me about the ‘Gifted and Talented’ kids, I looked at the question through the filter of my experience as a ‘gifted’ kid. Gifted and Talented meant no more to me than ‘being a little bored in class’.
Apparently, there’s a LOT more to it for a lot of kids, and I sincerely apologize for having been so dismissive. I can assure you that I will be far more sensitive to it in the future, particularly in the context of inclusion and the need to ensure that no one feels left out. All of you who pointed out that my attitude was anything but inclusionary were absolutely justified, and I appreciate your honesty.
That said, I stand by my right to bristle at the terminology.
Not liking the label does NOT mean that I don’t support the kids. Even yesterday, long before having being hit headlong by the sensitivity train, I tried to be clear about that. Some of you seemed to miss the part of the post that said,
Now, let me be clear. I’m all for ensuring that education is tailored to the individual student as much as possible. I whole-heartedly believe that a kid who’s development and skills are advanced beyond their grade level needs appropriate enrichment and stimulation just as much as a kid who is struggling to keep up needs help.
And the part that said,
Hopefully I’ve gotten the point across that I absolutely do not have a problem with the concept of special programming for kids who need it. If there’s a kid out there who may very well find the cure for cancer or unlock the mysteries of the autism epidemic, by all means, we must foster his or her talents and do everything in our power to support his or her intellectual curiosity. My problem is not ideological. My problem is in what we choose to call it.
To those of you who suggested that I thought that my child’s needs were more pressing than any other, I would direct you to the second sentence of the first quote above. “I whole-heartedly believe that a kid who’s development and skills are advanced beyond their grade level needs appropriate enrichment and stimulation just as much as a kid who is struggling to keep up needs help.”
The point that I was attempting to make in the second story yesterday about the mom who told me that her son with autism was also gifted was exactly that one. Looking through what I repeatedly explained was an oversensitive lens, I heard it as something akin to one-upmanship. I heard it as, ‘You think YOU’VE got challenges? Try THIS.’
And you know what? That might have been exactly what she meant. Or maybe not. It might just have been the way that I heard it. Either way, she was most likely just seeking a sympathetic ear. The good news is that as far as she knew, she’d found one. (No, that’s not meant to be flip. I’ll get back to this.)
One of you said yesterday, “Ask yourself it this was about Brooke today, or if was about your injured heart and the pain of your fears about what autism means for Brooke’s future.”
I would answer that OF COURSE it’s about my ‘injured heart’ and my fears for my child. I thought I’d said as much in the post when I said,
Perhaps I’m oversensitive. Hell, I know full well that I’m a walking nerve ending some days. I know too that some of the wounds simply haven’t healed yet. Acknowledging the distinct possibility that my hackles might have raised far too easily, I did my best to nod and smile and look sympathetic to her plight.
In the meantime, I actually am now more sensitive to her plight. After hearing from so many of you, both publicly and privately, I do now understand that there is absolutely an added dimension of challenge when you have a twice-exceptional child. (Speaking of ‘twice-exceptional’, one of you suggested yesterday that it would be “another term which will likely ruffle [my] feathers.” I actually LOVE the term twice-exceptional. In fact, I think it’s downright perfect. It connotes difference (exception) without judgement, which is precisely what I would like to be able to do in the case of ‘gifted and talented.’
I do still have to add that I wonder how many of our kids would fit into that category if we could peel back the layers of their challenges, but I’ll leave it at that in the interest of avoiding a twenty-page post.
Another reader asked me to “offer alternatives [to the term Gifted and Talented] … as [I had] for ‘normal’ and ‘regular.’”
I’m not sure that I know what the alternatives would be. Maybe it would help to use words like ‘accelerated’ or ‘enrichment’ or ‘academically advanced’. Even simply specifying ‘academically gifted’ rather than just gifted might help. Perhaps others have ideas they’d like to share. The same reader asked,
Who are you to say that one kid’s ‘different’ needs are more important than another’s? Why is it that people are so much more accepting now of inclusion for kids with challenges, but there’s a big hue and cry whenever a district tries to provide anything “extra” to meet the needs of a child who learns ten times faster than anyone else in the class?
She asked the question within the context of being admittedly oversensitive too. I appreciate and respect her asking for some leeway based on that, just as I had when titling my post, ‘an admittedly oversensitive rant.’ Despite the fact that another commenter had said “Life is hard enough without reading our own issues into other people’s words,” I think it’s the only way that we hear each other – through the filter of our own experiences. The reader who owned up to her own sensitivity had a very hard time as a kid because of her educational needs. I appreciate her sharing her story and sensitizing me as well. In answer to her query, I would respectfully ask her to direct her attention to the sections of yesterday’s post that I quoted above. In fact, I’ll reprint the words again.
I’m all for ensuring that education is tailored to the individual student as much as possible. I whole-heartedly believe that a kid who’s development and skills are advanced beyond their grade level needs appropriate enrichment and stimulation just as much as a kid who is struggling to keep up needs help.
[...]
Hopefully I’ve gotten the point across that I absolutely do not have a problem with the concept of special programming for kids who need it. If there’s a kid out there who may very well find the cure for cancer or unlock the mysteries of the autism epidemic, by all means, we must foster his or her talents and do everything in our power to support his or her intellectual curiosity. My problem is not ideological. My problem is in what we choose to call it.
Hopefully without sounding overly defensive, I do want to remind my readers that this blog is a diary. That’s why it’s called Diary of a Mom. I’m not writing a how-to manual. I’m not claiming to have all the answers. I’m sharing pieces of my world as I see them, through my filter, from my perspective. The way that I acted at the time that both of the stories occurred was very different from the thoughts that were racing through my head. There was a reason for that. As I said, I knew that I may well be off the mark. I knew that my ‘injured heart and the pain of [my] fears’ could very likely be leading me to a misinterpretation of either person’s meaning or intent. I got that part. And I acted accordingly in both cases.
But here, on the blog, I felt the freedom to process it all. To work through how I FELT at that moment and to write about the way in which my visceral, emotional reactions differed in many ways from my rational ones. I shared it all in the hopes of finding some understanding. That’s what I do here.
I appreciate you all taking the time to share your stories and your perspectives. I’m grateful to have had the opportunity to become educated and far more sensitive to a whole host of issues. Growth isn’t easy, but it’s always worthwhile.
Thank you.
Respectfully,
Jess
P.S. One commenter yesterday recommended the book Genius Denied by Jan & Bob Davidson, available on their website, http://www.geniusdenied.com/. I thought it worth highlighting in case others were interested.
Like this:
3 bloggers like this post.