Sounds like my situation back when I was in school. I wasn't labeled but I could tell not much was expected from me. Eventually there was a test, specifically end of middle school for what to take 9in high school, and I got exceptional grades in math and certain sciences. I think I got them because I was just doing it for shits, it didn't matter because, I figured, I would be taking basic low-level classes any way. Now I am in computer sciences with a bachelors in software engineering.

The label, implied as it was, set me back. I am 35, close to Kaufman's age.

Another aspect: If you are bored out of your mind, you don't perform.

I was placed in the "slow" math class. One day, in the first math lesson of a new school year, I got fed up with the idiocy and snarkily corrected a mistake the teacher made on the chalkboard. Unlike previous math teachers, who had just disciplined me for disruptive behavior, this one took me straight off to the fast-track math class and left me there.

You know what made the difference? This was a teacher who knew math, knew that his mistake was not obvious, knew that anyone who saw it understood math. Why did he know this? Because he had a degree in mathematics, not in education. That made all the difference.

That couldn't happen today, because teachers are required to have degrees in education, rather than degrees in what they teach. Until now private schools have been able to ignore this, but now the federal government wants to force this through everywhere.

Get the federal government out of education.

" Because he had a degree in mathematics, not in education. "

Man I'd kill for teachers like that.

My older bro was put in the "slow" classes his first few years in elementary. Took my mom's constant fit-pitching and an actual good teacher to get him put in the advanced classes, where he excelled.

Having twins, the question that drives me BATTIEST from strangers about them is "now which one is the smart/evil/good/older/outgoing/shy/whatever one?" Do NOT label my kids. In any way.

One thing I love about our charter school is the entire school gets what would be considered a "G&T" curriculum. Every student can benefit from that. Not every student at our school got promoted this year (no social promotions here!), but they did all get benefits from it.

the problem is that not every kid is equally intelligent. So how do we handle that? How do we make sure to give every kid the chance to live up to his/her potential, without dragging down the ones who actually are more intelligent?

@Gabe: How? No system is perfect, but there are two things that would help immensely.

1. Locally run schools. Local communities and parents determining what works for them. Get the feds entirely education.

2. Require teachers to show excellent skills in all of the subjects they teach. From junior high or middle school onwards, require degrees in their subjects.

1. Locally run schools. Local communities and parents determining what works for them. Get the feds entirely education. -- a_random_guy at June 25, 2013 12:52 PM

I hope you meant Get the feds entirely out of education.? ;-)

And I thoroughly agree. There does need to be some state level preemption, but even that can be limited to meeting read/writing/math standards.

I'm in sort of a split on teaching creationism/ evolution but as I stated earlier do I care which he believes as long as the plumber isn't proselytizing while replacing my pipes?

Gabe: Mixed-age classes, promotion based on learning the skill set, not on age. It would mean retweaking the entire system, though, so it isn't going to happen.

As it stands, your options are either tracking, or having the teacher work out an individual curriculum for each of the kids s/he teaches based on their abilities, which is an unreasonable expectation.

Locally run schools isn't going to solve the problem of some kids learning faster than others.

The research shows that in mixed-ability classrooms the slower kids thrive but the gifted kids tend to whither.

I agree labels can be self-fulfilling - both positive and negative. I think many so-called 'slow' kids would probably benefit a lot from just the right type of guidance or motivation or assistance .. I suspect that 'right type of guidance for individuals' is often what is missing from the system. I think it's about care and attention to each individual's situation.

"the problem is that not every kid is equally intelligent. So how do we handle that? How do we make sure to give every kid the chance to live up to his/her potential"

I suspect a big problem is not that there aren't enough opportunities in the system 'per se', I wonder if many under-performers aren't just struggling with personal problems. You can keep spending more and more on education and better schools, at some point it isn't going to help if the problem is e.g. that a child is depressed or has a crappy home situation or e.g. hates coming to school because they get bullied, or their parents are getting divorced, whatever. If I think back to my own school years, most of the kids who performed poorly academically, had difficult home situations.

"Kaufman warns parents and educators about the dangers of labeling kids early on as either "ungifted" or "gifted and talented""

I was labelled 'gifted' (and talented) and I'll admit I think the 'label' benefited me a lot - but not in the way one might think, i.e. not in terms of direct reputation AT ALL (I never once got the impression that anyone in the 'real world' cared e.g. employers, not even university admissions), BUT I was extremely depressed and beaten-down as a child and it bolstered my self-esteem a bit, and helped give me some reason to live to know at least I had something going for me in life.

Ironically though, it didn't make me feel smart, on the contrary, it made me feel stupid ... many of the other 'gifted' kids were much smarter or more motivated than I was, and so when I struggled to 'get' concepts that seemed easy to them, I thought I was just not that smart. I underperformed. In hindsight, I think I mostly just needed some better mentoring, treatment for depression, and someone in the system who cared enough to pay attention.

"If I think back to my own school years, most of the kids who performed poorly academically, had difficult home situations."

Actually, obviously anecdotal, but I'm just thinking for the guys I knew at school who underperformed academically, there's almost a common theme, most of them had bad relationships with their dads, or had abusive dads, or had 'absent' dads etc.