Autism And Education

I was in the gifted program in the 80's as was my ex husband. My one daughter is currently in gifted and my other daughter is being tested. My stepson is autistic and all 3 children live with my current husband (who is also gifted) and myself. I don't presume to know what potential my stepson has at 7 years old. As far as my husband and I are concerned the only limitations on him are those we don't give him the opportunity to try and achieve. I would gladly sacrifice the one day of week of gifted class for my daughters for more OT and speech therapy for my stepson. I could not in good conscience rob my stepson of the opportunity of an independent life so that my daughters (who are pretty assuredly going to have a decent shot at life) can be optimized. You see there is this misconception that if gifted kids are given more focused attention they will excel more. I disagree from firsthand experience. When I was a child I was given opportunity. What I wasn???t given was coping skills to deal with boredom, good study habits and how to take the initiative to explore my interests independently. The world didn???t lie at my feet just because I could play Risk or write an essay on pollution. In the real world, no matter the career, gifted children will have to deal with boredom and repetition. Success results in part from intelligence but in greater part from drive and the ability to deal with the situation you are in and direct it toward what you want. Now if my daughters are bored in class I can work with the teachers and AT HOME to give them the tools to explore more demanding subjects. I am by no means rich but I can have them research something or get a book from the library and write a report on it or take a test on it. I can have them research how to build something out of everyday items and let them learn how. If they don???t become the next Einstein (who never had special gifted classes) is up to them and how far they want to go. That is going to be their choice. I however can NOT settle for failing to help my stepson (who has no choice) achieve more than tying his shoes and being able to wash himself. I will not rob one child of the minimum to give my other children the maximum. I do agree that more attention (and maybe more funds) need to be focused on REALISTICALLY helping gifted kids but do not rob the poor (of opportunity) to give to the rich (of opportunity).

While I understand both sides of this argument, I have to say that unless you have a child in both categories (gifted and special needs) you can't possibly understand the positions of both sides. I do have both, and while I really feel the frustration of my gifted son being bored and restless while the other kids learn material he learned ages ago, I really cannot put this in the same category as the frustration of having a special needs child go without the extra support they need. Yes, there are special struggles for gifted children, but it cannot begin to compare with the struggles that result from depriving a special needs child the time and attention to learn to speak or walk in line or other basic functioning skills. My son is high-functioning, but will not be able to be mainstreamed anytime soon because the school district doesn't have the funding to have behavioral training (which he responds very well to) done at school. So he gets held back with kids he doesnt need to be with. And while my older son might get bored in class from time to time (and we don't have the funds to send him to private school), I always make sure to brainstorm with his teacher on ways to supplement his experience in class. The teacher often uses his free time (while the other kids are working on something he has mastered) to have him help other kids (which teaches him to help others, be able to describe his knowledge, gain self-confidence, etc), help her come up with assignments, organize paperwork, work on a journal, work on higher-level assignments, etc. Most teachers are willing (and happy!) to accomodate these things if you just ask them. There is NO comparison between providing a child with special needs the help they need just to GET BY vs making sure the gifted child receives EVERY ADVANTAGE...

NO, NO, NO, NO, NO! Why should my child be a scapegoat for the ???gifted???? My daughter has Down Syndrome and her 14 year old sister is also at the 95% percentile. She would never consider taking away her younger sister???s much needed assistance. Along with being in the 95th percentile (and reading all the Twilight books on consecutive days), she also exhibits emotional and social maturity beyond her years as well as a huge desire to serve others. I???m not sensing that at all from Stephanie Lindsley.

Like the author, I have one of each.. We were so involved with our older Autistic daughter and getting the school to provide basics for her that we missed our younger son abilities. It was a public school teacher that call our attention to the building problems - thankfully he was in kindergarten. Fortunately for us, we live in a district in California with lots of Autistic kids. Unfortunately for our son, this same district doesn't provide any differentiated material within the grade - only at grade level. The Gifted program is a joke. Because of federal law, my daughter will get a basic education for her ability and she is challenged. The sad thing is that our son will not be challenged in the public school system. Funny thing is that 30 years ago in the same state, I was given the ability to advance at my own pace.... Before... No Child Left Behind..... One could argued that my Son is being left behind by our system.

I think this was an excellent article, and the author is knowledgeable because she can see both sides in her own family. We have three gifted children and are extremely fortunate to live in a district in Texas that provides highly gifted children their own classrooms every day. Sadly, there is no federal requirement that gifted children receive differentiated instruction. However, our district (Carrollton-Farmers Branch ISD) does a great job of challenging its most capable students. The G/T program here is so good and so uncommon that families with G/T children move here specifically so their children can be adequately served without having to pay private tuition. Also, even if all parents of gifted kids could afford to send them to private schools, that doesn't guarantee that they will receive any better schooling. Private schools do not necessarily have any more training or funding to address a gifted student's needs.
Furthermore, it is untrue that gifted children will "bloom where they are planted." If a gifted child is in a regular classroom every day for 13 years, that child will be bored to death and will either underachieve or drop out and become a troublemaker. Many gifted students also learn to hide their talents because the "normal" children pick on them.
School districts must by law conform to NCLB, and they spend so much money on teachers and aides in special-ed classrooms in a thankless and sometimes hopeless attempt to teach some students the rudiments of education, whereas most districts let their brightest kids languish in ordinary classrooms that only teach to the ability of the slowest learner in the class. I think more attention should be paid to gifted students, and it doesn't necessarily take a lot of money. Simply putting all your gifted students in one class every day together can make a huge difference to the children. They find out that they are not "weird," and they are inspired by each other to new heights of learning every day. And even if the kids are smarter than their teacher, the teacher can still present them with new information every day that they wouldn't be exposed to otherwise.

I am dismayed by all the arguments posted here that are about the details of funding -- which money comes from where for whom. Folks, it all comes from US. Whether state or federal or local, our taxes pay for it all, and we should all have some say in how those monies are allocated.
For all of you who have posted their gifted kids are doing well with limited school support, good for them and good for you. I am not being facetious, I am truly happy for them -- but why are we focusing on only the narrow limits of our own experiences? Can we not all agree that kids are unique, situations are unique? Who gets the teacher who makes a connection to the right kid at the right time? Who is in a class with another kid with whom they can identify, and therefore offer mutual support and understanding? Who lives in an urban environment where there are lots of enrichment opportunities to be had, and who lives far from any of the wonderflul experiences so many of you have said benefitted your gifted child? There are so many variables that to say one experience speaks for all is shortsighted, and really answers nothing.
To judge or to shame or to otherwise issue personal attacks is cruel and hurtful. Yes, we can all be angry sometimes about the limited options we have, and how much more we want for all our children, whatever their capabilities. But can we not all believe that we, including Ms. Lindsley, are doing our very best for the children we love? I saw nothing in her article that made me think she is giving up on her son, or loves him less than her daughter. She wants the best for them both, and that's the point. Her son is getting the best, her daughter isn't.

Ms. Lindsley I'm so glad to see someone come out on a subject such as this. Where do we draw the line? I wish I had a answer. A relative of mine bore a child with such massive birth defects that it literally broke the bank in Nevada caring for the child. I.e. Nevadas budget for that year was gone when the million spent on this one child was spent. The mother moved to Utah where she started over so to speak and the child lived well past what would have been its normal life span of perhaps 1 year. Supposedly advances were made in understanding the syndrome. But at what cost? And why? So we could repeat the experiment so a child can live to age 15?
The American taxpayers have given me two kidney transplants with the cost surely close to 1/4 million dollars when in fact I'll never create another productive dollar for myself or anyone else.
This question is especially critical when we're obviously taking money away from our brightest and best. This country has been so successful in the past it was thought we could pay for all of it and in the past this to a large part been true. But medical care is so out of line now we can't.
That of course throws us into the argument of how to contain costs of our whole medical system.
Who decides who receives and who doesn't.
You're too young to remember when committees of physicials, religious leaders and others met to decide who received a critial medical treatment called kidney dialysis. Without it you died. Today no one dies in the Western world from lack of access to the treatment. Again - at what cost? You will be treated today even if its impossible to live out the week and you're in a coma.
Thank you for bringing up just one small part of the problem but one that exactly points a finger of what the damage is when we decide that everyone is "entitled" to treatment on demand.

Our gifted children are a critical asset in our nations future that cannot be squandered. We should increase funding for our special children to match or exceed funding for our special needs children. In this time of huge national budget deficits we, as a society, have to set new priorities and make some difficult decisions. President Obama has set a priority of fixing our educational system and limited resources may be better spent on our best and brightest.

Ms Lindsley points out a difficult reality. Her daughter is one of the children who can put us back on the international map of a well educated society who can lead in all areas again. She may be a perfect candidate for new programs enhancing our ability to produce world leaders in fields like science and math. We can't afford to leave her daughter behind and that may come at some loss of resource to her son. Some children will be left behind.

Our gifted children are a critical asset in our nations future that cannot be squandered. We should increase funding for our special children to match or exceed funding for our special needs children. In this time of huge national budget deficits we, as a society, have to set new priorities and make some difficult decisions. President Obama has set a priority of fixing our educational system and limited resources may be better spent on our best and brightest.

Ms Lindsley points out a difficult reality. Her daughter is one of the children who can put us back on the international map of a well educated society who can lead in all areas again. She may be a perfect candidate for new programs enhancing our ability to produce world leaders in fields like science and math. We can't afford to leave her daughter behind and that may come at some loss of resource to her son. Some children will be left behind.

I think differences in services provided by education funds to gifted athletes in her district and gifted students should also be compared. Also, a previous comment implied the corruption on Wall Street was by "former"gifted students or smart people. That is not necessarily the case. A well worn American mantra has been "sports builds leadership". We emphasze competition and that winning is everything. Maybe that has driven the greed and corruption. Brains and competence, nor honesty and integrity, necessarily lead to riches and business world success. I think most gifted people are not driven by greed, but to serve others with their talents - especially if they were to receive support and respect for their capabilities.

I think it would be interesting to also compare the "educational services" provided to "gifted athletes" to the services provided to gifted students in her district.

I've been where you are. My older son was gifted without doubt. He got a B in math - once. My younger son is autistic, although in the high functioning range. As for my older son when we asked the school what could be done for him, I give them credit - they were honest - "Put him in a private school. We can't educate him." We did and he did beautifully. We then sought legislative change in our home community.

My younger son was given first an IFSP and then an IEP. The District was not honest and they lied at every turn. Ultimately, we pulled him out and sent him to private school also where - surprise - he did beautifully. The District couldn't educate him either. The only difference is that they told me the truth when they didn't have any legal requirements telling them that they had to give my older son a "meaningful"education.

Jonathan Corchnoy, Esquire
Nows a special education attorney

My son was also in the Gifted and Talented program, but it only went so far before it was discontinued for lack of funding. Now I spend a small fortune on private schools to ensure his mind does not get lost in the shuffle, even so i know he could use the extra attention an actual program would ensure, if challenged in the right manner, what could he become? Where could he go and what could he contribute to the world? I don't know.

Perhaps "Gifted Children" and their plight are at a political disadvantage because of a semantic "P.R." problem of sorts. The overwhelming public sentiment that this segment of our country's most promising students are undeserving of assistance and intervention exists because the students are percieved to have academically advantageous "gifts." Why should limited educational resources be squandered on them? There is also a dangerous misconception that these children will excel in any environment. In reality, these children are at risk- as their "gifts" often prove to be a curse in many regular classrooms. These students have actual special needs as they do not learn or think in the manner of of their fellow students. Perhaps if they could be refered to as "alternative learners;" their own special needs would be given some legitimacy; and they could cease to be a lightning rod for hostility.

I applaud Ms. Lindsley on her critical pragmatic thinking- and her bravery! The message below is in response to a later poster who expressed "disgust" that a parent of a gifted child would want them to have the opportunity to develop to the best of their own individual abilities.