[couchdb_ouchdb]

We just ejected from Seattle Public Schools for this reason. My daughter, as a gifted student, was basically ignored by her teachers for the last 3 years because she was smart, and therefore they didn't have to worry about her. But, by ignoring her, she atrophied. Her standardized testing scores dropped every year. She no longer cared about learning. It truly is a regression to the mean.

[chasd00]

My oldest son managed to get into one of the actually functioning, albeit barely, magnet public High Schools in Dallas TX ISD ( Townview SEM). His little brother is in a magnet middle school and will probably follow to either SEM or the TAG (talented and gifted) magnet which is in the same physical building.

Both my wife and I agree, if we had to do it over again we would move to the exurbs and home school. TAG and SEM rank in the top 20-30 nationwide and it's still not that great. Homeschoolers can cover the same level of material and learning in about 3-4hrs where the public school alternative is all day sitting in desks and bored out of their minds.

[foobarian]

I'm considering something similar but I find it hard to figure out a good alternative, because they all seem "nice," have smart words on the website, cost about the same (which is not little), but when you look at matriculation stats it's not that impressive or visibly better than public schools. And then a bunch of them are weird religious schools which gives me the heebie jeebies. I guess you really have to be part of the "in" group and get recommendations from the other parents/grandparents/families and that's where the class divide is.

[couchdb_ouchdb]

100% agree with you. We went with a religious option because of cost, and, despite the religious aspect, are finding it much better.

We couldn't afford the private schools that are ~$50K, but, like you say, higher cost doesn't necessarily mean better education.

[PittleyDunkin]

You can also learn outside of school, too. Expecting the school to cater to every student just isn't going to happen. Even at the swanky private ones.

I was certainly capable of teaching myself in high school and skipping multiple years in certain subjects; why not just do that? Or find some other topic to learn about that isn't taught in school, like programming.

As a former "gifted" child—which I thought was code for "autistic" and not actually a compliment at the time, so it surprises me people willingly refer to their child as such—public school never catered to me, but I wouldn't have traded that environment for private school or homeschooling if you paid me. In my experience all that people talk about how private and homeschooling affects your ability to socialize with normal people is true.

[snerbles]

> You can also learn outside of school, too.

As someone who spent time in all three, I felt that my academic time was utterly wasted in public school. Sure, "learning outside" is always available, but that doesn't regain the time served in government mandated kid-prison.

> In my experience all that people talk about how private and homeschooling affects your ability to socialize with normal people is true.

In my experience, people are surprised that I spent 2/3 of my pre-college education in various forms of homeschooling. "You're so well-adjusted", is a frequent refrain.

[PittleyDunkin]

> I felt that my academic time was utterly wasted in public school

No it wasn't! You learned how to interact with normal people. That's a lifelong skill.

> "You're so well-adjusted", is a frequent refrain.

Sure, some people make it work. I don't think this invalidates the broad observation that private and homeschooled people are frequently socially... off. I myself had a homeschooled kid in our town who transitioned to public school for high school and made a very gregarious time of it. Then again, his parents also had him integrate tightly with athletics for the decade before this over precisely the concern about socialization we're discussing. Perhaps there's a critical time in development when socialization is necessary and there are other venues than public school to remediate this. I'm just saying you can't expect to completely avoid normal people and then slot into them later in life.

[snerbles]

> No it wasn't! You learned how to interact with normal people. That's a lifelong skill.

It taught me the necessity of being as viciously crass as my new classmates in order to fit in. If you consider that normal, then let it be known that I'm perfectly fine sticking with abnormal people thank you very much. I am perfectly content learning the lessons of Lord of the Flies by reading, and not by getting thrown into a small re-enactment of it.

Though I suppose public middle school psychology was useful when I was an internment camp guard in southern Iraq. I'll grant you that.

> Then again, his parents also had him integrate tightly with athletics for the decade before this over precisely the concern about socialization we're discussing. Perhaps there's a critical time in development when socialization is necessary and there are other venues than public school to remediate this.

I'll add to your anecdata - most homeschoolers I knew did sports and other extracurricular clubs, outside of the co-ops they may be participating in.

[zdragnar]

> I don't think this invalidates the broad observation

The word you're looking for is stereotype. There's lots of harmful and inaccurate stereotypes about all groups of people out there, and polite society generally frowns on using them as a form of bigotry.

> Perhaps there's a critical time in development when socialization is necessary and there are other venues than public school to remediate this.

There are tons of opportunities for this sort of thing, in the form of non-school youth groups such as 4H, sports teams, scouts and so on.

In fact, actual in class socialization is frowned on or punished in most schools. It's the in-between time and extracurriculars when that happens most anyway.

[PittleyDunkin]

> The word you're looking for is stereotype.

Sure, but that doesn't change anything. That some people will be unfairly characterized by this is an unfortunate byproduct of being born a human.

> There's lots of harmful and inaccurate stereotypes about all groups of people out there, and polite society generally frowns on using them as a form of bigotry.

Only the bigoted forms :) stereotypes aren't going to disappear out of inconvenience

> In fact, actual in class socialization is frowned on or punished in most schools.

I've never heard of a school that could combat socialization in any meaningful way.

[Dylan16807]

> No it wasn't! You learned how to interact with normal people. That's a lifelong skill.

If that's the main thing you learn, it's only worth an hour or two of the school day. So it's not all wasted but it's mostly wasted.

[frmersdog]

In what way are you certain that she's gifted?

[couchdb_ouchdb]

In Seattle, there's actually a test you can take to get you into the "HCC" program which is the gifted program in Seattle Public Schools. Seattle, however, has been trying (successfully) for years to dismantle it. So even if you pass the test, there's not very many places that you can go to get these services.

[TeaBrain]

Was this a test that a child could be voluntarily signed up for by their parents? In my district in a different state, the students were first selected based on standardized testing to then take the IQ test like exam to get into the program.

[couchdb_ouchdb]

I think that's correct. She was first flagged with standardized tests.

[treis]

Unrelated but I'd love to hear the story behind your user name.

[frmersdog]

I'm not so certain that a test like that is proof of anything other than that someone has the resources to study for that test. Seattle's system seems to have been a magnet program (where such tests are maybe appropriate) masquerading as a gifted program. One has to wonder how many gifted students went underserved so that such a magnet program could be maintained. Sunsetting it for a neighborhood program seems fairer and more effective.

In any case, it's good that you've observed your daughter's failure to achieve without an extrinsic impetus. It's probably a good time to sit down with her and determine what excites her intellectually so that she can be empowered to pursue that subject independently. I can tell you first-hand that relying on a school or school system - even one that routinely sends graduates (minority and white, working and middle class) to highly-selective colleges and universities - to shepherd students into stable and lucrative careers is currently a fool's gambit. Academic achievement is often necessary but not sufficient (and also more expensive and time-consuming than incorporating a measure of autodidacticism.)

[chipsa]

Most tests like this are IQ tests, and studying has little impact on IQ test scores, except perhaps showing where you over think things or take too much time. It might get you from 12% to 35%, but won’t get you from 12% to 70%.

[frmersdog]

Most IQ tests are rife with cultural biases, and can, in fact, be studied for. There's also no indication of what constitutes "passing" for Seattle's test, and how that compares to "passing" in other jurisdictions.

[threatofrain]

IMO any student that is 1-2 years ahead can be considered gifted for the purposes of parents who are thinking about how to optimize public or private education for their kids.

Based on how a lot of education systems work in the US (recognizing only discrete progress in a student), if your child is 1-2 years ahead then that's worth recognizing and start nurturing. That's about when public schools also recognize the giftedness of a student.

You don't need brilliant children to achieve this kind of advantage, just a careful eye and consistent nurturing.

[gowld]

The OP strongly tries to claim (before contradicting herself in the concluding pargraph) that gifted is a major psychological difference, not merely being smart and a fast learner.

[DiggyJohnson]

Can you quote where you are seeing that I didn't get that reading at all from GP.