I disagree, your definition of PG is too narrow. If we only look at the TATE's of this world, many children who need specialized education will be left out.

My dd, PG by DYS standards, learns differently than a ND child or even a HG child. She learns and understands concepts at a fast pace. She needs an environment that takes into account both her rate of learning and her style of learning. One of the things we need to keep in mind is that at the end of the curve, every child is different. You can no longer "group" them and hope for the best.

And dottie,

Sorry for the nightmare. e-hugs on their way to you...

Thanks Bianca...now that my church camp is out of the way, I'm on to stressing about school, .

I agree with you on the prodigy front. I think those kids that are at the "Good Will Hunting" level tend to speak for themselves (though not always, .) But that doesn't mean any child above that 99.9th percentile is any less in need of extreme accommodations! If nothing else, that level should easily grant said child a truly individualized approach. If slapping that profound adjective in front of the dreaded G word makes that happen, then I'm all for it!

I find this a fascinating discussion. There seems to be an emerging consensus on a distinction between the prodigy/little man tate/good will hunting level, on the one hand, and the PG level on the other. I agree with those who say that in the end what matters is not how you categorize your kid but whether they are getting what they need. Still, figuring out what they need depends in part on having some sense for who they're like - and that is a kind of a categorization problem. And as far as the categories go I'd assumed that PG and prodigy were virtually synonyms.

As a parent I find myself constantly looking for role models whose children are like mine and who seem to have done an admirable job giving them the opportunities and support they need. Terence Tao's father, for example, has some inspiring ways of talking about his experience as the father of a prodigy. But is my kid like Terence Tao? It's a bit hard to tell - DS is only 4.2 - but if I had to I'd bet against it. Some of the stories ring true but others, especially those describing Tao at ages older than my son now is, seem like they come from a different trajectory. If that's right, then perhaps Billy Tao isn't my best role model. The main advantage in having a label, it seems to me, is that it helps you to figure out who your role models should be. And that, in turn, helps you to determine which individualized approach will serve your child best.

BB

I have Terence in that "next level" and have DS's SAT scores at 9 to prove it, . But yet it is still helpful to read about his experiences. His story is detailed in the book Exceptionally Gifted Children, and while his ability level is quite extreme, I found a lot of practical insight from the other stories chronicled there, as well as from his.

If I had to force a label on DS, I'd probably choose the EG designator, but the full range is so misunderstood at this time, that I see no need to make a case for anything beyond "HG+". If others mention what DITD is doing though (which they rarely do), I will include DS in the "PG" camp as they are including him in their "free services to profoundly gifted students". Actually one local person DID make that connection shortly after the TIME article came out last summer (it was released shortly after news of DS's skip likewise hit the media).

I agree completely that it is helpful to read about his experiences. One thing that really strikes me is how careful the family was about giving him time to develop a broad educational foundation; another is how careful they were about attending very seriously to issues of character development. Both of these seem like very important guiding principles. And after all, who can argue with success? I've never met him myself, but from everything I've heard and read about him it sounds like - leaving completely to the side his mathematical genius - TT is the kind of person could hope your child emulates.

I see, too, that there are political reasons to have the PG label - and that in some very broad sense the EG/PG/prodigy kids have in common the need for an individualized plan. There is a good political reason, then, to treat them as a group. But from the point of view of a parent trying to figure out what's going to work for my kid, that general grouping might (and the might here indicates genuine uncertainty) but might be too coarsely grained.

BB

I agree, Bianca. We have one child in our district who is obviously PG and is accelerated several grades. People seem to accept his acceleration as needed, but lump all the other students together. The district insists that the services provided by our district serve the needs of all the other students. Though they may serve the needs of the MG children, the needs of the children between MG and prodigy are not sufficiently met. I feel like the biggest battle I have to fight in our district is to educate people that the difference is not necessarily how much these students know but the rate at which they learn.

I think those of us with children between MG and prodigy sometimes forget how profoundly different our children are. We spend everyday with our children and what they are appears relatively normal to us. I had a bring me back to reality moment the other day at our local science museum. The museum had three tables set up with hands on exhibits for children. There were a couple of teen volunteers at each table. As we went up to each table DD9 would talk to the teen volunteers about the items on the table. Without fail at each table one of the teenagers said to dd9, "Wow, you are really smart."

Wow, these kids are really smart even if they are not prodigies. The DYS site states, "we strive to serve the extreme of the gifted population." We need a term to differentiate the needs of this extreme. IMO their needs are profound. That is why it is so difficult to find an appropriate educational environment for them. Over 80% of the PG (using DYS criteria) children I know are educated outside of the public school system because the public school system failed to meet their needs.

We are working with terminology defined by a test which is no longer valid. People have tried to superimpose the terminology onto the valid tests of the day, but I think everyone is in agreement those tests do not differentiate sufficiently at the higher levels. For lack of a better definition, I use PG as defined by DYS criteria.

I think we have identified the big problem for advocacy is that kids are so different at the tailends that one size does not fit all. But creating an environment so that they learn and socially connect is a serious part of our jobs.

Just thought of a story so I will write it. DH went to Harvard at same time as YoYo Ma. Although he was already a recognized professional and touring around the world, his parents made him take the time and go to college. He had a crush on a girl and even though he was YoYo, Caroline Kennedy was there and many other recognizable people. So he was one of many, sort of. Like that movie Vitus, that someone rightly recommended. He just needed to one of many for a while.

So on one hand they need a specialized path to ensure their motivation and also a structure that allows them to be just a human being.

I think I went on a tangent, sorry.

Ren

Great post Summer!!!

Well said, bianca. That's what matters at the end of the day. I personally like the HG+ label or even better the DYS label when talking about my son. I think the YS shows well enough how far on the curve he is.

While my son is not Terence, I found his story very inspiring. I think his parents did an amazing job and made lots of great choices.