Parents of gifted children : Expectations of the institution

This is a rant for all the parents who are incredulous in the face of the institution’s proposals and management, which remains deaf and mute.

Every parent has expectations of the institution, some realistic, others unrealistic. However, can it be considered unrealistic when these expectations involve elements provided for in institutional texts? This is precisely the case for parents of gifted children. Provisions such as teacher training and accommodations are outlined, yet all too often, nothing is done.

Unfortunately, and as always, to achieve something, one must go to battle. This applies in all areas; you will not achieve anything through intelligent argumentation and a willingness to exchange ideas. To achieve, you must demonstrate and exert pressure, thereby generating conflict, even if you do not want to. Beyond any qualification, history shows that significant changes have occurred this way. You must initiate a revolution, be proactive, and tackle the problem head-on. Will the actions of a few parents here and there have a significant impact? Probably not. Nonetheless, if every parent demanded that the texts be respected, the institution's staff would surely understand that their efforts must be generalized. Today, for teachers, having a student with special needs in a class, and even more so a gifted student who "has everything to succeed" according to common perception, often seems like a chore.

Is this the perception that needs to be fought against? Is it one of the sources in the nature of evaluating problems or difficulties? It certainly is part of it.

In some contexts, the difficulties are very real, but in others, they are more subtle. So, should we mobilize when everything seems fine for a gifted child?

For the institution, it seems the central question is: why mobilize and for what real issue since all school and external indicators are green?

1) What should be the main expectations of the parent and why?

The problem lies in understanding the situation—who does what, who knows what, who envisions what, and why. In short, they should be able to understand.

However, and this is not contradictory, they should expect only one thing: to finally be able to trust and let things be, including educational team meetings to define the PPRE (Personalized Program for Educational Success) to address the real problems.

I think it is complicated to propose relevant solutions if the origin of the problem is not defined with certainty.

My analysis on this point is that the problem lies more in the lack of transparency and the multi-level communication gap among the stakeholders than in what might be considered insistent, annoying, unjustified, vague, or incomprehensible demands from parents.

The institution will be keen to talk to you about the concept of co-education, which should indeed be defined so that everyone's expectations are regulated.

Without definition, I do not precisely know how co-education should be organized or envisaged, but I imagine that communication between co-educators should have a predominant place, right?

Be vigilant about situations where the façade speech is inconsistent with reality, such as being asked to be in co-education while being left in the dark.

Can you be asked to trust when the institution does not respond to your requests for clarification and when you do not know the level of understanding of the problem related to an area that someone else manages on your behalf, or worse, admits not knowing, in the best-case scenario?

2) What should be your expectations for the well-being of your gifted child?

Be proactive as early as possible, stay open, and engage in a constructive, transparent, and clear dialogue on all these points and others that seem important to you. These elements, in my opinion, are very easy to implement in school and require little time investment compared to other classroom accommodations:

A. Differentiated work by level and/or skills or following certain subjects in another class. I believe the child should really be in demand, as it would be preferable to address repetition with different, creative, organizational learning through small group workshops, etc.

B. Addressing repetition/ease during class hours by offering exercises adapted to their real skill level without waiting for the child to make no mistakes, which is not an indicator. Replace repetitions with enrichments and deepening in areas of success (associated with: nourishing their intellect, exploiting their resources).

C. Limiting the normalization of processes and expectations (including evaluations). Encourage their autonomy, creativity, and use of intuition.

Even if desire is at the heart of the memorization process for all individuals, it is, I think, even more crucial for a gifted child. We must question to avoid fostering the association: school (learning) = constraint. Such an association would be very damaging. We must create meaning and support its importance with examples, which would also benefit others.

Without this, few will not start questioning this schoolwork, its importance, its impact, and will have a hard time working autonomously without supervision, especially boys.