Talk:Gifted education

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Gifted education article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Education Mid‑importance

	Education portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of education and education-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EducationWikipedia:WikiProject EducationTemplate:WikiProject Educationeducation articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Alternative education (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative education, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Alternative educationWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative educationTemplate:WikiProject Alternative educationAlternative education articles

Psychology Low‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Duke

Duke TIP About Talent Search has a list of the states covered by Center for Talent Development, Center for Talented Youth, Rocky Mountain Talent Search, and Talent Identification Program. --Christopherlin 07:31, 2 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

This article's introductory passage focuses primary about gifted education in the United States. We need someone who knows about how gifted education works internationally as well (this involves specifying AP as only in the US and Canada and some international schools, for example). However, I am so Americanized. Simfish 04:42, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Not only is this Americanised it seems to be quite POV. Some educationalists believe that there are advantages to keeping gifted children in mainstream education without exceptional treatment, others disagree with aspects of the "gifted" phenomenon (how to identify a gifted child, whether class-bias will occur, etc). See Grammar schools in the United Kingdom for a cursory introduction to some of the problems when Britain had two entirely seperate school systems for the gifted and non-gifted. --VivaEmilyDavies 13:09, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've made a small start by moving some material that was US-specific to the section on that country and editing the first paragraph to make it more universal. I may add some material in other entries that I will link if I get the time. --Autarch 15:17, 27 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I've started a small page on Mara Sapon-Shevin and provided links to and from it. I've added a section on criticism of gifted education, but just put the link to the new page in it. I'll expand both the new page and the new section over the next few weeks. (I've to look up references to critics of Sapon-Shevin for one thing.) --Autarch 15:53, 27 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Looking at this page, it seems to be both just a page of links and quite POV. I'm not sure if all the links are relevant - the fictional example seems as out of place as a link to Biggles in a discussion of the history of World War II. One other thing - am I really the only contributor who has looked at this page recently? I'd have thought that such a controversial topic would have the opposite effect. --Autarch 19:51, 5 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the work on it lately, Autarch. I have this article on my watchlist because I'm interested in gifted education, as I was in a fairly substandard "Gifted and Talented" program myself as a child, and now have a couple of early-achiever children who may end up in our local program (if it's better than the one I was in) -- but I don't know much about the field as a whole. I think most previous contributors to this article have been in the same boat. Tackling these large overview articles is daunting for many, so they just add a link to the one school they know. I do appreciate seeing more work on it, and I'll be happy to keep an eye on your progression and help out where I can. — Catherine\^talk 01:08, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, Catherine, they are much appreciated. One thing that occurred to me is to have a separate page for the huge list of wikilinks to programmes - it's such a large list it's becoming unwieldy. That or maybe make it a subsection of its' own. I have to admit that I'm not as positive about gifted education as I used to be - maybe it's just some forms of it that put me off - however, I'll try and make my contributions as balanced as possible. User:Autarch 14:57, 29th November 2005 (UTC)

I think the reason that no one has edited this page is that it is so obviously a "bash the gifted" page that there is no point in trying to fix it. Far better to direct people to Hoagies where there are a lot of articles and resources with some content. 63.249.114.7 07:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hoagies? --SV Resolution(Talk) 20:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ohh. Hoagie's A nice lady at C-Mites told me about it. Yes, we should link to it. --SV Resolution(Talk) 20:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Globalize

I agree that this article is done from a very American perspective. In the UK, gifted education has been handled very differently, and is not treated in the same way from borough to borough. Also, in the history of gifted education in the UK, it has traditionally been collected into the same category as education for children with below average ability. There has been a very careful effort for over sixty years to keep terminology for both sets of children neutral - both sets have been called "exceptional", a term which also encompasses those with emotional and personality disturbances. Individual cases should be written up under a special educational needs Statement (SEN) - although the use of Statements for gifted children seems to have fallen out of favour. There have also been widely variant methods of dealing with exceptional children in the UK, but there have been clearly identifiable periods where separate or integrated education in varying forms have been prevalent. I have researched this topic quite extensively a few years back, and if I can find the time to read over my notes i may add some extra information to the article from a British perspective. Redcore4 (talk) 15:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This would be fabulous. The US isn't monolithic, either, and some places seem to have handled it according to the UK model. Some districts, for example, had "Special education -- Low" and "Special education -- High" programs. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this article could become "Gifted education in the USA", just as there is an article called Grammar schools in the United Kingdom. This would allow this article to mature. "Gifted education in the UK" or in Europe, or India, or any country in the world could logically each have their own articles. Because gifted education in different countries is handled very differently. Eventually, "Gifted Education" could be an introduction, listing education concepts covered in other articles, covering concepts specifically related to gifted education, and having links to how its actually handled in different parts of the word. --SV Resolution(Talk) 20:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gifted in Canada

I also find that the article is very Americanized. One problem for Canada is that the education system seems to be based at the provincial level, so you would end up with slightly different programmes for each province. Can anyone from Canada verify this?

I may have found some useful information from the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (OISE - pronounced Oy-zee) and will try and put together something more coherent. Tassit (talk) 15:07, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Split by Autarch

I don't really see the reason to split off the list into a separate article. Besides, per naming conventions, "List of..." is often preferred. Programs vs. programmes I don't know. I've changed the wording to bring it more in line with WP:MOS. --Christopherlin 21:01, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An earlier contributer made the point to me that it made the article clumsier to read - I suppose it's a matter of aesthetics. I'm fine with the changing of wording - I'm just used to a particular spelling - if the guidelines suggest it, I'm quite happy with it. Autarch 21:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. Categories were designed to reduce the need for manually-updated "list of" articles. I personally think the list should be in the main article, instead of split off. --Christopherlin 22:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, the list is back in the original article - I put it near the end. Autarch 19:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Odd Wording

The application of TPD to gifted education is one of several (other applications include psychotherapy, personality theory, philosophy of Man, etc.).

It really feels like this could be phrased better; any thoughts?RyanGrant 18:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaning up the article

I kinda stumbled upon this article after being on Wikipedia for a while. I had to take a break from education. But it looks like there are some places that would help it improve:

making all the citations and references consistent- some are APA references, and some are footnoted references
using multiple resources (right now there seems to be a lot of information by Susan K. Johnsen to the point I had to wonder if she wrote a part of this article).
providing multiple definitions of giftedness, including Joseph Renzulli's state of gitedness
expanding the programs section to the point that affective education, enrichment, and pull-out should probably have their own pages, each discussing the benefits and disadvantages of each.
a more thorough discussion on the history of gifted education and GT studies, including the Sputnik revolution on education, the US Dept of Ed's adoption of a definition, and the various journals that study gifted ed.
No, Susan Johnsen did not write that part of the page ... I did. It was just that I had her book at hand when I did it ... but thanks for the snarkey comment Joelmcintosh (talk) 17:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We are really neglected

Wikipedia is not a chat board. Please do not post personal experiences on this page.

I am a student (going to 8th grade as of Sep. 4, 2007; from this point on please take my comment seriously, not as one that an over-confident student made up) who finds regular school-work easy, additionally my grades do show my performance, and with my recent experience with a Gifted and Talented program at NJCU during the summer, named Preyecto(may be an incorrect spelling), I still feel as I was not challenged enough and was able to complete the program with incredible ease. However, some people were often yelled at in the program in a manner that made it uncomfortable for the unbelievably few of us that actually took this as a serious academic program. In addition to that, the program often felt like a morale lesson, about how we came here to learn. As I am limited on time, I will conclude my comment by saying that Gifted and Talented programs are horribly neglected, I understand the "No Child Left Behind" act, but it also comes with "No Child Left Forward" act. [an additional thought: the logo on ed.gov for the act looks like it was created by a 3-year old (seriously), who had access to the Microsoft Paint program]

For all of those annoyed by my formal language: I only did it to make my comment more credible.

68.197.81.196 03:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree there are many difficulties for gifted students -- though I couldn't quite follow what you were saying. If you can find the time, could you expand, please? Kalai Eljahn 23:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, my general point is that there is little or none personalized education and that the non-gifted students are sometimes mixed in to make the program look more successful. As I was in the program, there were several kids who were average, no offense to them, and many of which misbehaved [you should please note that my close peers would describe it this way and know it in their minds with hesitation caused by the hurdles of regular school life (peer pressure, however it is a self-inflicted type; by self-inflicted I mean that some of us think like "They did not do anything to us so we don't need to do anything with them.")]. Side notes: Contrary to possible popular belief, it was easy to become popular, without committing some of the genuinely immature acts that other teenagers/adolescents preform. However, there was also an initial rejection phase before we became "socially acceptable" to the regular school kids in our Gifted and Talented school (the one I currently study in;I do apologize for leaving this out as it is crucial to know that my standards for school are very high, and that my current school does not meet my expectations, in order to fully comprehend my complex opinion.). -- I am also very glad that I am attending my current school, because I had never known (until last month) about the poor standards of other schools, I was completely dumbfounded to find out.

If anyone has any other questions or comments please send me an email to dextrone-=gmail.com please substitute -= for @ before emailing me (anti-spam measure).

I am also aware that my post probably answered some questions and due to my strong opinion, created some questions. Regardless, I am tired from a short 1 1/2 day trip and therefore cannot properly reply.

I would like any suggestions for gifted and talented programs in the Jersey City area of New Jersey, and additionally, am seeking help to make arrangements for obtaining a better education. I would also appreciate if this message was spread out, so that action can be taken against this issue (I have almost no means of making my opinion recognized so that it would make an impact on the current situation).
Slightly off topic: I feel weird in my current position, unable to find better education, trying to reach my high standards ,but I cannot find any solution.
Anyway, I am still a human and also do have many personal desires (places to go, things to do). However, my desires are not orthodox (e.x. I want to go to Japan, have a hands on experience learning, and achieving my desires in harmony with my regular life, not go to high-decibel concerts, have a girlfriend, or any other such things; several of my close friends who achieve grades similar to mine and think like me also have a similar opinion), and therefore am unable to achieve most of my non-materialistic desires in a timely fashion. It is not necessary for me to experience those things, but I feel left out, my parents are considerably wealthy but not so wealthy (my dad's a semi-old doctor) to make possible even my smallest non-materialistic desires (experiencing a challenging school that I would like). It'd be nice to experience some of these early in my life (like going to Japan, having a nice city environment to live and grow up in[I think however this is not really possible in the USA], and collaborating with my peers in a way that is not influenced by modern society and its flaws). --I just put this part as part of what many of us are missing out on.

68.197.81.196 00:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, IMO that about sums up the state of American G&T education. As a former bright kid myself, I'm sympathetic. I believe things have improved -- my friends tell me that teachers finally got the message about how much we hate them assigning groups so that there was one bright kid and one failing student in each group -- but there's still a long ways to go.

But this is Wikipedia, not a chat room, and these discussion pages are intended solely for discussions on how to change the existing encyclopedia entry to more accurately describe the mess that's out there. Solving all the world's problems will have to be done somewhere else. WhatamIdoing 01:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was a GATE student. My school had extra strict penalties that other students didn't have at the school. So we were under even more pressure not to screw up. I remember if I didn't do my homework, I would have to call my parents in front of the teacher and tell them that I was in trouble. Not to mention the other odd penalties, like making me sit on a painted dot for an hour at a time during lunch. I never had any say of going in or coming out. I never felt different than any other student. All of a sudden I was told I was smart and was put under extreme pressure to the point where I often threatened to kill myself if people wouldn't leave me alone about my grades. A few years later I was kicked out at the begining of the school year for failing the one and only exam I had a chance to take in one class. When I took an interest in academics, I wasn't allowed back in. I remember my druggie friends that could have cared less about school had their weighted GPAs handed to them on a silver platter to help them get in the finest universities. But at least the military was nice enough to take someone with intelligence that would be financially insecure after high school. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.107.225.216 (talk) 17:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a chat room. These discussion pages are intended solely for discussions on how to improve the existing encyclopedia entry. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List

Can we split the List of G&T programs off into its own, independent page? The length of the ToC box is intimidating right now. WhatamIdoing 18:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

August 2008

Freek,

When you wikilink a word, it needs to go to a useful page that's related to this one. A remarkable number of words that you wikilinked didn't land on a useful page. For example, you linked the word prone in a sentence about the myth that "highly intelligent children were prone to ill physical and mental health". Unfortunately, the word prone here is about a tendency or likelihood, and the page that you linked to was Prone position, which means lying down on the ground.

Please also avoid linking years. I know it's done in many articles, but if the other things happening in the same year (such as a war) are not obviously directly related to the subject at hand, then the date should not be linked. See WP:OVERLINK#Dates, "Stand-alone years, months and days of the week should generally not be linked."

I've undone everything, for (my) simplicity, but I ask you to be much more restrained in the future. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi You, Please avoid overdoing things. If a word like Prone has different meanings and onlys 1 is mentioned in the wikepedia a solution is also to correct at that place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freek Verkerk (talk • contribs) 19:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History section

I'm concerned that this section is basically a synthesis and that we do not have one or more secondary sources that covers the whole period. For a start, the period up to the Renaissance is taken from a Handbook, and could therefore reasonably be assumed to be arguing the following: that the policy of identifying and separately educating gifted children today is normal and justified because it goes back thousands of years. Are there any histories of education, not specifically about gifted education, that contain the same argument? Itsmejudith (talk) 15:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia doesn't require a single source that covers everything. I'm not sure that any single book exists that covers the history of gifted education in every time, place, and culture. Most sources, whether they purport to be about gifted or general education, only touch on it briefly (e.g., ISBN 9780873678452, chapter 1 or ISBN 9781419166051 p 527). General education books often omit the subject entirely.

The Handbook is a widely respected work, and I would not expect it to err in its claims. Additionally, the opposite claims -- that ancient teachers wouldn't have noticed which students were better than others, or that schools and other institutions might encourage their least capable or middling students, rather than their most capable students, to pursue further education -- defies common sense. I therefore have no doubts that gifted students have tended to be identified and educated, even in times and places when such activities weren't systematic. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spam

Hi Danjel,

The links I removed seem to be present for the purpose of promoting the websites/organizations (WP:ELNO#EL4 violation, and the typical definition of "spam"), not to provide information. Importantly, most of them talk about gifted people but not gifted education (which is the actual subject of the article), or they are useful/interesting to only people in a particular country.

I don't think that a person who wants to know more about the idea of gifted education will be helped by these links. What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

G'day WhatamIdoing,

I'm not so sure. I appreciate what you're saying, but I do see value in these websites.

Taking a look through some of those links, it doesn't seem like they're "selling" anything, as such. They're .org's. They do provide much more information on some of the concepts in relation to G&T education.

NAGC is especially important, because, among other things, it provides a route for advocacy for parents and children. I imagine that a lot of the people looking at this particular page would be doing so because they've been told that their son/daughter is "gifted", and those parents really should look into their associations. If it means that your point on relevance to particular countries, then I can add the important ones for Australia (ie, GERRIC, AGTC, etc.).

Danjel (talk) 09:26, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IQ tests

"Early IQ tests were notorious for producing higher IQ scores for privileged races and classes and lower scores for disadvantaged subgroups."

Modern IQ tests reveal the same pattern. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.128.75.248 (talk) 08:41, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Only if you start off with the circular logic of defining "privileged race" as "races that do well on IQ tests". Asian-Americans as a group consistently outscore white Americans as a group, but I believe it's generally accepted that white Americans, not Asian Americans, are the more privileged race.

While small racial differences can be seen, the modern tests have much less of this effect. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligence Citations Bibliography for Articles Related to Human Intelligence

You may find it helpful while reading or editing articles to look at a bibliography of Intelligence Citations, posted for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human intelligence and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library at a university with an active research program in these issues (and to another library that is one of the ten largest public library systems in the United States) and have been researching these issues since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research. You can help other Wikipedians by suggesting new sources through comments on that page. It will be extremely helpful for articles on human intelligence to edit them according to the Wikipedia standards for reliable sources for medicine-related articles, as it is important to get these issues as well verified as possible. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 14:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Links of dubious relevance

Some links looks suspicious, possible WP:LINKSPAM:

A link for professionals suffering from opiate addiction (link dead, linked via Wayback Machine).
American Dental Association on drug use (link dead, linked via Wayback Machine).
Article on lawyers and alcoholism (link dead, linked via Wayback Machine).

As all are dead anyway, I'll remove them.Autarch (talk) 18:43, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Homeschooling = Gifted?

I would really like to see a link to some kind of independently verified research that supports any correlation between homeschooling and a child's intellect (the words "independently verified" being key, of course). I'm highly skeptical that any licensed educators without a vested interest in self-promotion use the term "homeschooling" as an "An umbrella term encompassing myriad educational options for gifted children". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.121.169.116 (talk) 13:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any sources handy, but there's actually a well-known, weak correlation. Students with below-average IQ or mental retardation are most likely to attend government-run schools; gifted students are more likely to have some sort of home-based/parent-led education (either as the primary form of education, or as a supplement).

The fact that academically gifted kids do academic stuff at home really shouldn't surprise you any more than the very similar claim that kids who are good at sports play sports at home. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:33, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More likely, not most likely. ;) I personally think home schooling is 9 times out of 10 complete rubbish, so it's out of my area of interest. Sorry, I don't have any references on that in my bibliography.

But I think the point that you're looking for, is, IMO, more interesting for the article; that gifted children are more likely to have spontaneously developed academic interests and are more likely to pursue them at home? I probably have some references on that if it can help? -danjel (talk to me) 23:59, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the grammar point, I had three groups of students in mind: Students with BAIQ or MR, students of normal intelligence, and students with high intelligence. Consequently "most" is actually the correct term. (Of course, since your mind-reading skills are presumably no more advanced than mine, you couldn't have known that I was working with three groups.)

I've seen quite a few homeschoolers, including some who had really amazing homeschool programs—far better than the local public schools—so I doubt that they are even mostly rubbish. I've also seen one really horrific homeschool program that resulted in the kids barely learning anything at all (except how to whine) for several years, but those actually seem to be rare. (This family chose "homeschooling" as an alternative to further meetings with the truancy officer.)

I think the broad definition of homeschool (i.e., not just exclusive homeschooling, but deliberately learning anything at home) is appropriate here. I'd love to have you improve this article, with any good sources that you happen to have access to. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, we're in agreement on the last point. But perhaps we need a different term than home schooling, which generally means home schooling?

I think I've seen two kids who were home schooled well, both when I was teaching at uni. The rest, and I've seen a few as a primary and high school teacher now, were taught next to nothing by parents who were too hippy even for the alternative schools like Montessori or Steiner schools. They did have good creative art and musical skills, though... -danjel (talk to me) 05:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

POV in Justification

This sentence is clearly POV: If education followed the medical maxim of "first, do no harm," then no further justification is required for providing resources for gifted education. Given the discussion in the controversies section (in particular the mention of writings of Mara Sapon-Shevin) the very notion that such programmes do no harm is hotly disputed.

This section in general can do with more citations.Autarch (talk) 18:18, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although I'm a proponent of G&T Education, I agree. I'll edit to reflect that this is POV. Danjel (talk) 04:29, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Summer Enrichment programmes (United States)

This subsection is centred about one country - adding more countries for a more global view would be better.Autarch (talk) 20:21, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More citations needed

Several paragraphs don't have any citations. I'm not sure if the citations in the article address some of these issues and just haven't been referenced often enough, or if there are no sources to support the articles.Autarch (talk) 20:24, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the latest additions to the article should probably be cited to Web sources rather than linking from article text.

There seem to be a lot of additions of content mentioning the United States organization NAGC to this article, which is all right, but the referencing should be in the same citation style and follow the same rules about external linking as other articles on Wikipedia. I'll check the article in a while and see what needs cleaning up by the Wikipedia manual of style. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 23:43, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced statements in article

Like most of the 6,434,630 articles here on Wikipedia, this article has been accreting quite a few factual statements over the years that are unreferenced and, in some cases, wrong. Let's discuss in this section any unreferenced statements in this article for which it is worthwhile to find a reference. I recommend the source list for articles on this topic and related topics (mentioned in an earlier talk page section here) for references we can all use to improve the article. I'll pass through the article to tag some of the statements that I think are most in need of references, and invite your commments about good sources. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 00:05, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Links

Greetings! I added back a few links to gifted assessment pages. They were removed on the grounds that they were not reliable sources. But my understanding is that criteria for external links is not the same as that of sources. The links are relevant to the topic, and some of the only online resources available for this topic, run by an organization that assessed giftedness. I believe they are relevant to the page and therefore should remain. DaltonCastle (talk) 18:37, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have mixed feelings about Hoagies. It is self published, questionable in presentation, and isn't something we could use as a reference, so I'm not sure that we should be directing readers to it. However, it doesn't seem like a major problem. Advanced Psychology Services is more of an issue, as it is there primarily to sell services, so it runs into WP:EL. I don't see much value in linking to it, and there are good reasons for not doing so. At this stage I'm inclined to pull Advanced Psychology Services, but leave open the possibility of Hoagies. - Bilby (talk) 07:18, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, I see your point. But looking further into it, while they do sell services locally, the online assessment is free and relevant to the page. I have been looking around for other sites that offer a similar service, but haven't been able to see any. Especially not among any non-commercial sites. So what's the best approach here? DaltonCastle (talk) 19:15, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Online assessments have not been validated and do not deserve any links, per WP:EL. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 21:56, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look at both links and tend to agree with DaltonCastle, it is true that both sites have commercial sections, but they have a wealth of resources for parents of gifted children, some of these resources are quite unique and cannot be found elsewhere on the web. Wiki-shield (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 11:49, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think we'll just need to fall back on the external links guideline - it is not a recognised online test, is doubtful (I answered "unsure" to every question and it still said there was a 30% chance that my child was gifted), and there are a lot of other online assessments online, with no clear reason to single out this business over the others. I looked at the other resources, but there isn't enough on the psy-ed site to make it worth using as a resource. I'm happy to let Hoagies sit, though. - Bilby (talk) 12:00, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting... I assume "unsure" is weighted at 30% for normalization purposes, this is quite typical in statistical tests. Out of interest, I just profiled my nephew (who is in gifted program) and got 86% giftedness likelihood score. Then I profiled my son and got "Based on your answers, there is lower than 20% chance that your child is gifted". Oh well... Anyway, if we strictly follow external links guideline then both links are to be removed (as there are commercial sections in both sites). Yet, following this logic will result is removing 50% of existing external links across Wikipedia and most of these are valuable resources that are only available at commercial sites...Wiki-shield (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 12:35, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Attendance

'Goodey" tried to run-up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.117.16.45 (talk) 21:51, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Raise the importance level

This topic really ought to be High Importance. While the subject is neglected in the popular consciousness, and among political elites, the education of the brightest and most talented is disproportionately important compared to their percentage of the population. Gifted people are the most underserved demographic, with the profoundly gifted and the twice exceptional (gifted and learning disabled) as the most underserved subcategories.

There is no way that this subject merits only Mid Importance. Gifted Education is not "minor details"; Gifted Education is the backbone, the foundation, of a society's education system, and how well a society educates gifted people and serves their educational needs should be the metric by which the entire system is judged. Educational methods, techniques, and structures that work well for gifted people work well for everybody, but gifted people truly need them, and if society does not serve their needs, it misses out enormously on possible innovations.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Gifted education. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080105203603/http://www.webster.edu:80/~woolflm/letahollingsworth.html to http://www.webster.edu/~woolflm/letahollingsworth.html#adol
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071212183424/http://www.nagc.org:80/index.aspx?id=572 to http://www.nagc.org/index.aspx?id=572
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.edb.gov.hk/index.aspx?langno=1&nodeID=4156#defintion
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.edb.gov.hk/index.aspx?langno=1&nodeID=4156#prin
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.edb.gov.hk/index.aspx?langno=1&nodeID=4156

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:04, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Gifted education. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.webster.edu/~woolflm/letahollingsworth.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nagc.org/index.aspx?id=572
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050428115413/http://www.cbe.ab.ca/programs/spec_ed/se-gifted.asp to http://www.cbe.ab.ca/programs/spec_ed/se-gifted.asp
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.edb.gov.hk/FileManager/EN/Content_3201/ecr4_e.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927190517/http://www.gt-cybersource.org/Record.aspx?NavID=2_0&rid=10586 to http://www.gt-cybersource.org/Record.aspx?NavID=2_0&rid=10586

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:04, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Gifted education. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:58, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Short Deescription too long

The current Short Description is too long. It's about the size of a paragraph:

broad term for special practices, procedures, and theories used in the education of children who have been identified as gifted or talented; the main approaches to gifted education are enrichment and acceleration

Could someone who is well versed in this subject matter please pare down the Short Description to < 40 chars. as per Wikipedia's rules. The Short Desc. is used in Wikidata and other related projects. Thanks. Jimj wpg (talk) 03:43, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Original Research

This article consists almost entirely of off-the-cuff opinions. 2600:1700:6AE5:2510:0:0:0:24 (talk) 01:11, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]