WE ARE BACK ON MONDAY! And I think you are going to LOVE the new look, the fabulous and amazing new contributors…EVERYTHING! WOO HOO!!!!

See you then.

As I get everything together for the launch, you can expect to see the site a MESS. So, keep up the patience and we will back soon with fabulous content.

THANKS!!!

I’ll be back on or before February 1 with whatever this blog will morph into.

I am using the next two weeks to redesign my social networking sites, develop some new ideas for the blog and writing, and otherwise get things cleaned up. I hope to be back 1/9 with a new look, new schedule and…

well, just new.

Have a safe New Year’s!

That is, until this morning.

I woke as usual, heading out to my writing cave (aka my local Starbucks) to finish up edits and free the day up to spend with family and friends. Um, NOPE! I turned on my computer only to find that every single one of my google accounts had been disabled for “suspected terms of service violations.”

WHAT??!!??

I assure everyone, I never knowingly violated the TOS.

So, I read through the TOS for all of my accounts and still, I have no idea what has happened and why! So, I filled out the form for google to get this worked out, combed the forums for answers and here is what I know:

1. My accounts may or may not ever be restored
2. If they are, this could be weeks – WEEKS – until I hear from someone at Google
3. This is happening to lots of people right now – part of the cost of all the spammers out their
4. I have no access to my gmail, blogger, google, etc
5. There is nothing I can do until I hear from Google.

Wow! Just WOW!!!

So, my response. Wait. Try to be patient. And do what I had been planning on anyways – streamline my online presence, combining my blog and websites. Reconsider using my google products (there are plenty of others out their), and move forward.

The truth, I need to edit. This is an annoyance that is just going to have to wait to get solved.

So, if any of you are trying to reach me, do so through my website. And if I have not responded to your email, it is because I can’t. As for my angel giveaway on my other blog???? I will announce the winners when, and if, I can access the account again.

Again, wow. Just wow!

Based on your thoughtful comments, there is still so much more to talk about. So, I want to turn it over to you.

What myths have you found? What myths do you believe? And what should we do next?

Lay it on me!

Oh! and I will be taking off until after the first of the year. Have a great rest of 2011! And  a safe start to 2012. I plan on “redecorating”, so things may look a little different when we all return next year.

I’ll be back next week with a wrap up of the GT Myths series and a little poll….

While it is true that gifted children have strong potential to perform well in school, assuming that this means that they do not need an engaging educational experience that enriches their gifted minds is unfounded. All children deserve an enriching educational experience, not one that serves the children who struggle at the expense of the children who naturally excel.

More evidence for the need to directly teach and enrich our gifted students can be found in looking at the research comparing American children to their foreign counterparts.  While American children excel in the younger grades, these scores drop drastically as the child ages. In twelfth grade, America is ranked last on performance scores in advanced math and science courses (NAGC, 2009).  While the studies do not discuss possible causes for the decline, one could argue a correlation between support offered to gifted students and performance.

Gifted children placed in traditional classrooms that do not differentiate for their exceptionalities typically experience a level of boredom and frustration that can have very negative long-term impact (Neihart, Reis, Robinson, & Moon, 2002). This frustration can then lead to a host of more negative outcomes, including underperformance and dropping out. In fact, at least 5% of children identified as gifted drop out of high school – surprising considering their potential (Renzulli & Park, 2000).

I don’t know about you, but it sure seems like they need support to me!

What are your thoughts on this???

Acceleration is one of the more hotly debated areas of gifted education. And yet, the research is clear – acceleration does not inherently hurt or damage the social development of gifted children (Kulik, 2004).  In fact, many gifted children benefit from the exposure to more challenging work.

Whether or not acceleration is an option for a gifted student is something that school-based teams need to look at on a case-by-case basis. Just as the research indicates that acceleration is not harmful as a rule, it also indicates that some students have not benefited from acceleration (Neihart, 2007).  The important thing for schools to realize is that each case needs to be determined using data and available research.

Bottom line – schools and parents must do their homework and make decisions on case-by-case basis that are evidence-driven decisions, taking into consideration the specific emotional development of the child and the school and home network of support that child has.

What are your thoughts on this?

Hmm, let’s think about this one for a moment.

This myth defies common sense, as well as the research in the field. Most adults and children feel more comfortable with their “equals”, or in this case intellectual peers than with others who demonstrate stronger abilities than they do. I mean, would you feel comfortable playing golf with a professional golf player when you only play occasionally?  I think not.

Classrooms are similar.  Average students typically prefer to take risks with intellectually similar peers, as opposed to the children who seem to have no problem understanding the material.  Likewise, most gifted students are more comfortable with intellectual peers when it comes to performing in the classroom setting.

Research studies that look at the impact of ability grouping indicated increases in achievement for all groups when they were grouped according to ability.  It is important to note, that grouping is flexible and can vary from activity to activity, or subject to subject – as opposed to tracking which implies a single track for all students based on a very narrow definition of potential (Gentry & Owen, 1999; Neihart, 2007). The research not only indicates positive academic outcomes, but positive social outcomes for our gifted kids, something that is truly in our kids best interest.

What are your thoughts on this?