Your Child Is Not Gifted... anymore.

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

Headache in a Suitcase

Site Team
Staff member
Joined
Jul 16, 2000
Messages
75,765
Location
With the other morally corrupt bootlicking rubes.
Montgomery Erasing Gifted Label
Implications Concern Some School Parents

By Daniel de Vise
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, December 16, 2008; B01



The label of gifted, as prized to some parents as a "My Child Is an Honor Student" bumper sticker, is about to be dropped by the Montgomery County school system.

Officials plan to abandon a decades-old policy that sorts second-grade students, like Dr. Seuss's Sneetches, into those who are gifted (the Star-Belly sort) and those who are not. Several other school systems in the region identify children in the same manner. But Montgomery education leaders have decided that the practice is arbitrary and unfair.

Two-fifths of Montgomery students are considered gifted on the basis of aptitude tests, schoolwork, expert opinion and parents' wishes. Officials say the approach slights the rest of the students who are not so labeled. White and Asian American students are twice as likely as blacks and Hispanics to be identified as gifted.

School system leaders say losing the label won't change gifted instruction, because it is open to all students. But this is Montgomery, where schools are known more for SAT composites than football records and where most, if not all, children are thought by parents to be above average. To some parents, any whiff of retreat from a tangible commitment to gifted education is cause for concern.

If Montgomery school officials don't "give these kids a name, they can ignore the real fact they exist," Lori White Wasserman, a parent, wrote on an e-mail list for advocates of gifted instruction in the county.

School systems in Alexandria and Arlington, Loudoun, Prince William and Prince George's counties also label students as gifted, in much the same way children might be designated as having special needs or limited English proficiency.

Other school systems, including those in the District and Fairfax, Frederick, Howard, Calvert and St. Mary's counties, have gifted programs but not, strictly speaking, gifted students.

It's partly a matter of semantics. Montgomery and Fairfax take a similar approach to gifted education, and both have well-regarded programs, one of which happens to label children as gifted. Parents in each county raise the same grievances, chiefly about the inconsistency of gifted instruction from school to school.

"What matters is what the kids are going to get, not what they're labeled," said Louise Epstein, a Fairfax parent.

In Fairfax, about 15 percent of children are offered admission to centers for the highly gifted based on a second-grade screening, but the children are not labeled gifted. Montgomery also screens children at the second grade, and 40 percent are identified as gifted, but the label guarantees no specific service. Montgomery operates its own gifted centers, but admission to those is based on a separate screening process.

The gifted label is a hot potato in public education. A school that tells some students they have gifts risks dashing the academic dreams of everyone else. Any formula for identifying gifted children, no matter how sophisticated, can be condemned for those it leaves out.

Montgomery officials say their formula for giftedness is flawed. Nearly three-quarters of students at Bannockburn Elementary School in Bethesda are labeled gifted, but only 13 percent at Watkins Mill Elementary in less-affluent Montgomery Village are, a curious disparity given that cognitive gifts are supposed to be evenly distributed.

School officials worked for decades to fix the inequities. Later this school year, the school board will take up a recommendation to abandon the label.

The aim is "to get away from this idea of putting kids in boxes and saying, 'You're gifted, and you're not,' " said Marty Creel, who directs the school system's Department of Enriched and Innovative Programs.

Local school systems generally screen all children for giftedness in third grade. In Prince George's, 10,000 of 130,000 students are labeled gifted; in Prince William, 8,700 of 75,000 students. Elsewhere, students with demonstrated gifts are generally steered into accelerated instruction but not formally labeled.

The debate about gifted education is loudest in elementary and middle schools, where the kind and amount of accelerated instruction varies widely. It matters less in high schools, which consistently track accelerated students into honors and college-level study.

On the e-mail list of the county's Gifted and Talented Association, Montgomery parents have debated the implications of losing the label. Some parents see the designation as leverage to get services they believe their children deserve. Others say the label has been misused or ignored by school officials and are glad to see it go.

Montgomery schools began identifying gifted students in the 1970s to target them for enrichment. Since then, aided by a proliferation of tests, educators have become more nimble in deciding who needs accelerated instruction. Teachers codify children's math and reading levels with frequency and precision unknown in previous decades.

Teachers and principals say the gifted label has become obsolete.

"It can set up a kind of have and have-not atmosphere at your school, and we don't have that here," said Aara Davis, principal of Georgian Forest Elementary School in Silver Spring.

Georgian Forest is one of two Montgomery schools that have quietly ditched gifted identification as an experiment. No one at that school or at Burning Tree Elementary in Bethesda is labeled gifted. Principals and teachers say they don't miss it.

In a classroom at Georgian Forest one morning this month, a group of fourth-graders attempted sixth-grade math: If one-quarter cup of sugar makes one glass of iced tea, how many glasses would 3 1/2 make?

"Are you supposed to multiply?" a girl asked three classmates. "I think you divide, actually," a boy replied. "Okay, what's the strategy, guys?" another girl interjected. Moments later, they had the answer: 14.
 
I'm on the fence about this, on one hand I agree certain students will be "gifted" and really do need more of a challenge, but on the other hand, from what I've seen the parameters that decide who is "gifted" in the early years of elementary school seems pretty arbitrary and biased, it's usually the students that make good grades and that the teachers like.
 
from what I've seen the parameters that decide who is "gifted" in the early years of elementary school seems pretty arbitrary and biased, it's usually the students that make good grades and that the teachers like.

:huh:

There is testing to get into the gifted program, you know. At least in my state. I had to do a four hour IQ test when I was eight years old to determine if I'd be in gifted or not.
 
:huh:

There is testing to get into the gifted program, you know. At least in my state. I had to do a four hour IQ test when I was eight years old to determine if I'd be in gifted or not.

Yes, I know there is testing(in some schools), but first of all it's not consistent throughout and second there have been a lot of studies that show these test to be somewhat misleading.

You'll find one school district that will base it on grades and teacher recomendations. Others that have IQ tests, and others that have aptitude tests...
 
i loved, loved the program i was in during elementary school. it wasn't so much advanced work but more an "enrichment" program -- and it very much avoided the "gifted" label and had a weird acronym instead.

the drawbacks were that i think it does foster a sense of elitism no matter what it's called, and the criteria for entrance into these things isn't terribly reliable. we were told that it was a combination of test scores, demonstrated creativity, and task commitment. seems like 2 of those 3 things are fairly arbitrary, but what i found out later was that the test scores create the cutoff line, and the rest is window dressing.

but there's no question that i loved my program and i benefited tremendously from it.
 
i loved, loved the program i was in during elementary school. it wasn't so much advanced work but more an "enrichment" program -- and it very much avoided the "gifted" label and had a weird acronym instead.


Ours was called 'Promise', and there was no testing, and to be honest I don't remember much of the program at all except for the fact that it got us out of the classroom a couple hours of the week, so it was cool. Then in middle school it was called "Gifted and Talented", there was testing then and it provided a little more, but high school is when it really paid off to be in the program. It was then that certain students within the program were tested and invited to be in an Independent Study Mentorship, which allowed us some pretty big opportunities.
 
So in others words, kids like my son who are on honor roll, won't be recognized for the hard work and time he puts into is school work to get on honor roll? That's a bunch of crap, there are kids I know that are in honors classes and on a sports team and still get on honor roll with a 98 average, to me that is something that should be recognized and applauded.
 
it's yet another step in the further pussification of america's youth.

there are actually little leagues out there where you're not allowed to win. really. everybody wins. that's a great lesson to teach kids... hey, you're all winners... they'll really learn how to deal when things are bad that way.

i was always told growing up that it's not the mistake that matters it's what you do after the mistake... after things go wrong... that really makes you who you are. now we're just trying to make sure nothing goes wrong for our kids. god forbid you hurt their precious little self esteem. for fucks sake public schools don't even let kids play dodgeball anymore so that the weaker kids don't get picked on.

complete bullshit. life is full of failure. being able to be a strong person through that failure is what builds character. trying to hide the failure and say it doesn't exist builds a generation of pansy asses.
 
it's yet another step in the further pussification of america's youth.

there are actually little leagues out there where you're not allowed to win. really. everybody wins. that's a great lesson to teach kids... hey, you're all winners... they'll really learn how to deal when things are bad that way.

i was always told growing up that it's not the mistake that matters it's what you do after the mistake... after things go wrong... that really makes you who you are. now we're just trying to make sure nothing goes wrong for our kids. god forbid you hurt their precious little self esteem. for fucks sake public schools don't even let kids play dodgeball anymore so that the weaker kids don't get picked on.

complete bullshit. life is full of failure. being able to be a strong person through that failure is what builds character. trying to hide the failure and say it doesn't exist builds a generation of pansy asses.

I agree to a certain point. I think the whole everyone gets a trophy thing is being blown up on both sides.

I think there needs to be an acknowledgement of an age timeline.

Some want their child to go out the first year they are able to hold a bat and play real baseball. The problem with that is, first they don't know how to play, they don't know if they even really enjoy it, etc and you want them to worry about winning or losing. Some kids will never get to bat or even play. I do think when starting out that it's not a bad idea to just make it about learning the sport and having fun, no preasure of winning or losing, everyone get's a shot at learning and figuring out if they enjoy the sport. Then the next year introduce scoring.

But I agree, you can't continue that form of the sport, at some point the children need to learn everything about baseball, that sometimes they'll lose, or sometime they won't be able to play.
 
the drawbacks were that i think it does foster a sense of elitism no matter what it's called

Well when I was growing up the other kids in my main class used to sneer at me and the few others who left for a few hours every day. I remember reading a story some kid/teen had written about a suicidal nerdy kid who "wore glasses and was in gifted." That seemed to be the mentality against gifted kids in elementary.
In middle school it wasn't noticeable because there was no "homeroom."

I think you grow out of that crap by high school. A few people labeled my friends and I as those "AP nerds" or whatever, but they're probably busy picking up their knuckles from the floor right now. :wink:

I don't understand parents these days. They turned up all right, we turned up all right and the next generation is going to build houses out of bubble wrap. Go figure.
 
it's yet another step in the further pussification of america's youth.

there are actually little leagues out there where you're not allowed to win. really. everybody wins. that's a great lesson to teach kids... hey, you're all winners... they'll really learn how to deal when things are bad that way.

i was always told growing up that it's not the mistake that matters it's what you do after the mistake... after things go wrong... that really makes you who you are. now we're just trying to make sure nothing goes wrong for our kids. god forbid you hurt their precious little self esteem. for fucks sake public schools don't even let kids play dodgeball anymore so that the weaker kids don't get picked on.

complete bullshit. life is full of failure. being able to be a strong person through that failure is what builds character. trying to hide the failure and say it doesn't exist builds a generation of pansy asses.



i understand, to a degree, but i think there's a difference between "trophies for everyone!" and trying to remove certain practices (i.e., letting the most aggressive and athletic boys be captains who pick the teams in gym class) that really do humiliate certain kids and turn them off from, say, sports. i can't speak about the specifics of the dodgeball example, but i do vividly watching as some of the weaker kids, some of the kids who were picked on, some of the kids who were picked last, some of the kids who were identified as weak by the older kids and ruthlessly bullied, who began to turn off in junior high and high school. school became a source of pain and humiliation, and so they removed themselves from the situation in as much as they could.
 
i loved, loved the program i was in during elementary school. it wasn't so much advanced work but more an "enrichment" program -- and it very much avoided the "gifted" label and had a weird acronym instead.
Same here. Ours was called GTC for "Gifted and Talented Classes/Children".

I remember about several of us took a very long test in guidance counselor's office, which was actually just a classroom that had couches on one side and oblong tables on the other instead of desks. There were two GTC classes. Humanities, and Math and Science. Some people got into both, I only got into the Humanities one. There were only about five or six of us in the Humanities class. We met for about two hours every Tuesday, and it was really fun. I got to study things I wouldn't have had a chance to in the regular classes. We also took lots of neat field trips (with GTC students from other schools) to museums and stuff, though we had to pay for them personally, unlike the grade-wide field trips which were funded by the school.

I don't recall any of the other students exhibiting bad feelings toward me because of my placement in the GTC program. Rather, they tended to see it as an excuse to have me do their work for them, especially on group projects. There was a dynamic of "Well you're in Gifted, so you can figure it out for all of us." I didn't mind it too much, then again, I am a control freak.

While I think that students should be properly screened into Gifted programs (ie, tested), Gifted programs should not be done away with. Take them away, and all you're gonna have are a bunch of smart kids, sitting bored and frustrated in the classroom while the teacher drones about stuff the kid already knows. The brain is a muscle that needs to be exercised, and for some kids, that can only come in special programs.
 
i understand, to a degree, but i think there's a difference between "trophies for everyone!" and trying to remove certain practices (i.e., letting the most aggressive and athletic boys be captains who pick the teams in gym class) that really do humiliate certain kids and turn them off from, say, sports. i can't speak about the specifics of the dodgeball example, but i do vividly watching as some of the weaker kids, some of the kids who were picked on, some of the kids who were picked last, some of the kids who were identified as weak by the older kids and ruthlessly bullied, who began to turn off in junior high and high school. school became a source of pain and humiliation, and so they removed themselves from the situation in as much as they could.

and some of them became CEO's and billionaire founders of microsoft.

again... it goes back to the basic principle of learning how to deal with failure. do you learn from it and grow stronger? or do you let it drag you down?

for every kid who got picked on in elementary school for being different who sulked away, there's another kid who grew stronger from it.

i've been involved in athletics for most of my life and continue to do so as a coach now... and in elementary school i was a scrawny kid with glasses and a girl's name. yea, kids just left that alone... riiiiight.

i never was able to get to a higher level in athletics, and had very low self-esteem until a couple of coaches taught me that oh so valuable lesson about picking yourself up when things are down and growing from it, and now i try to instill the same things in the kids i coach.

obviously yes... there is an age level involved. i agree that kindergarten, 1st grade kids should worry more about skill development than winning championships. but there still needs to be some element of competitiveness in it.

there is a problem with parents sapping all the fun out of childhood by being overbearing on their kids at a young age... but the solution can't possibly be to take away all competitiveness... both in athletics and academics.

now a days if your kid doesn't get enough playing time the parents call the school board, if the kid gets a B+ instead of an A the parents call the school board... if the kid is caught doing something wrong, it's not the kids fault... let's call the school board.

i know a high school baseball coach who was coach at his alma mater and was very successful there... he benched two star players for a playoff game because they showed up late and hungover. the team lost the game. the coach was run out of town.

it's a sad sad world.
 
and some of them became CEO's and billionaire founders of microsoft.

again... it goes back to the basic principle of learning how to deal with failure. do you learn from it and grow stronger? or do you let it drag you down?

for every kid who got picked on in elementary school for being different who sulked away, there's another kid who grew stronger from it.



i disagree with this. i think that the vast, vast majority of those who were tormented and bullied have it adversely affect their lives as teenagers and adults, and it's the rare person who goes on to become the founder of microsoft. when you're talking about gym class at a public school, i think it should be a somewhat comfortable space. this doesn't mean that you don't score points, this doesn't mean that everyone gets a participation trophy (though when you're 5, that does mean something). what it does mean is that the activities engaged in by any gym class isn't structured to enable certain kids to be cruel to other kids.

i think back to elementary school and there were certain kids who were tormented to such a degree that it makes me sick to my stomach, stories about kids who would get sick in the mornings before school because they were so scared of going to class for fear of what could happen to them. we wouldn't let adults treat each other in such a manner, why would we let children?

i think we agree on the main premise -- the lesson of "The Incredibles" -- and i do think that the "everybody wins" philosophy has diminishing returns especially once a kid hits 4th or 5th grade (and everyone knows at that point that it's all patronizing BS).

i also think that you are probably a good coach. a lot of them are pretty terrible.
 
I hated going to gifted and hated most of the things we did there. I felt a lot was it just "creative" BS to give the illusion that we were somehow being enriched. I also absolutely hated leaving my classroom on Wednesdays for it because they'd plan the special ESL student classes and the special ed stuff that day too. So now you'd have a fifth of the class missing, which meant the teacher didn't really want to do anything substantive, so they got extra gym classes, they got extra arts stuff to do, crafts, make gingerbread houses, have a bake sale and whatever else. Basically all the FUN stuff that we always missed on.

All the neat things I learned were taught by my parents or grandparents who bought me loads of books, took me to museums and galleries, taught me about different architectural eras, took me to Italy to see pre-Romanesque churches, put a camera into my hands, let me go wild with crafts at home, etc. I know not all children are so lucky, but nevertheless, if I had to do it over again, I would certainly decline gifted.
 
i disagree with this. i think that the vast, vast majority of those who were tormented and bullied have it adversely affect their lives as teenagers and adults, and it's the rare person who goes on to become the founder of microsoft. when you're talking about gym class at a public school, i think it should be a somewhat comfortable space. this doesn't mean that you don't score points, this doesn't mean that everyone gets a participation trophy (though when you're 5, that does mean something). what it does mean is that the activities engaged in by any gym class isn't structured to enable certain kids to be cruel to other kids.

i think back to elementary school and there were certain kids who were tormented to such a degree that it makes me sick to my stomach, stories about kids who would get sick in the mornings before school because they were so scared of going to class for fear of what could happen to them. we wouldn't let adults treat each other in such a manner, why would we let children?

i think we agree on the main premise -- the lesson of "The Incredibles" -- and i do think that the "everybody wins" philosophy has diminishing returns especially once a kid hits 4th or 5th grade (and everyone knows at that point that it's all patronizing BS).

i also think that you are probably a good coach. a lot of them are pretty terrible.

will i'm not arguing that kids should be tormented and abused the way many are... the way i even was at times. and it does cause large issues for many...

i'm not saying i'm okay with bullying... i'm not, at all. trust me... i go nuts on any kid i have who thinks they have some sort of sense of entitlement where they can belittle someone else on the team over anything. we pretty much agree.
 
will i'm not arguing that kids should be tormented and abused the way many are... the way i even was at times. and it does cause large issues for many...

i'm not saying i'm okay with bullying... i'm not, at all. trust me... i go nuts on any kid i have who thinks they have some sort of sense of entitlement where they can belittle someone else on the team over anything. we pretty much agree.



i also wonder if, instead of cracking down on bullying -- and i did expand the topic, if we keep it focused on, say, not counting touchdowns because everyone wins in touch football, then we totally agree -- time wouldn't be better spent equipping kids to deal with bullies (or just general disappointment). i think we'd better serve kids by helping them cope with disappointment and loss rather than avoid disappointment and loss creeping into their lives.

of course, how one does this, i don't know ...
 
i disagree with this. i think that the vast, vast majority of those who were tormented and bullied have it adversely affect their lives as teenagers and adults, and it's the rare person who goes on to become the founder of microsoft.

I was bullied from kindergarten right up till high school. Sounds pathetic, but its true. I turned out all right. That was because I took some responsibility for what happened to me. No, I didn't entirely blame myself. But instead of seeing myself as a victim of torment, I accepted that I brought a lot on it on myself because I lacked the self-esteem, confidence and sense of humor that wards off bullies.

i think back to elementary school and there were certain kids who were tormented to such a degree that it makes me sick to my stomach, stories about kids who would get sick in the mornings before school because they were so scared of going to class for fear of what could happen to them. we wouldn't let adults treat each other in such a manner, why would we let children?
.

You'd be surprised how similar adults treat each other the way children do - and get away with it. Somethings never change in the real world.
 
I was bullied from kindergarten right up till high school. Sounds pathetic, but its true. I turned out all right. That was because I took some responsibility for what happened to me. No, I didn't entirely blame myself. But instead of seeing myself as a victim of torment, I accepted that I brought a lot on it on myself because I lacked the self-esteem, confidence and sense of humor that wards off bullies.


You got bulled because some kids are shitheads. End of story. You didn't bring it on yourself in any way. Having low self-esteem doesn't give others a license to bully you. And I say this as someone who was bullied all the way from kindergarten through most of high school.
 
You know the sayings "you teach people how to treat you", and "if you don't respect yourself no one else would"? If you don't treat yourself in a manner that shows clearly to others that you are mentally strong and have self-respect, they'll make their life miserable. Yes, they are nasty people to begin with, but you can't give them a reason to treat you poorly.
 
i always get nervous posting in here

There is testing to get into the gifted program, you know. At least in my state. I had to do a four hour IQ test when I was eight years old to determine if I'd be in gifted or not.
it might vary from state to state, but i too had to do a ridiculously long test. i was in florida too at the time, it's been so long my memory's kind of fuzzy but i think i had to get tested every year to make sure i was still gifted. i had to go to a completely different school for one or two days of the week, but it didn't bother me. i liked the challenge. it is kind of disappointing to hear some kids might not be challenged or pushed as hard as they once were, just because they think it's unfair labelling. if a gifted student isn't put in accelerated classes, they could get disinterested and end up doing poorly in classes in their grade, just because it bores them.

just because one class in one school in the whole county has three kids who can do sixth grade level math in fourth grade doesn't mean it's like this in every school. it would've been nice if they'd found a kid or class or something where it showed the other side, kids being neglected because they weren't being challenged. kids being expected to only do fourth grade level math in the fourth grade, which isn't a big deal since they are fourth graders, but everyone works at different speeds.

i think back to elementary school and there were certain kids who were tormented to such a degree that it makes me sick to my stomach, stories about kids who would get sick in the mornings before school because they were so scared of going to class for fear of what could happen to them. we wouldn't let adults treat each other in such a manner, why would we let children?
same here. plus you see it on tv all the time, like someone not being able to climb the rope in gym class, that's a big one. and dodgeball, ugh. i was one of those kids who always was the last one picked and while that didn't leave a major impression on me, i didn't really care either way (though who knows, maybe that was part of my disinterest in playing sports) but i can definitely attest the teasing hurts. i'm still affected by things said to me 13 years ago in school. and it definitely happens with adults, sadly. sometimes i think adults are bigger babies than children. it's sometimes a whole different kind of bullying (though sometimes it's the same - office gossip is often the same kind of crap people said in high school). i think part of the reason america's become so pussified, as headache put it, is because you've got a generation of people who were bullied and are trying to stop it, thinking all of this will prevent it. it won't, unfortunately. but i guess if it makes the parents feel better, it doesn't matter if their kids are still teased.
 
I think "gifted and telented" label is waaaaaaay under rated. A school where 3/4 are G and T? As if! I thik a "gifted" person is someone who shows ENORMOUS potential in an area, not someone who has an above level I.Q on some piss poor test that weeds out all the kids who can't concentrate for four hours, or who get nervous in tests and doesn't do well. I think its another label to give a kid, who then either gets a big elitist head (and when going OUT of the county it get popped due to the fact that GASP you're not as good as other people (R.E Lisa Simpson)) or you get stressed/fearful kids who feel pressure all the time to keep being "gifted" and having a parent/s on their back to keep doing well.
I'm not saying this because i agree with kid gloves type of teaching, but more to the fact that most kids are not "gifted" but overall just show a bit more enthusiasm for school then others. I mean not to be rude, but look at how many people here were on the "gifted" lists (me included) yet we are all just normal everyday citizens, no one here is discovering a cure for cancer, working on some astrophysics thing, leading the world with your forward thinking green company, inventing new things and so on. So what did it really do for us? Surely if we were truly "gifted" we'd be somewhere a lot different to where we are? I mean yes i have a good knowledge of things, i am confident I can do a good job with things, im comfortable in my own abilities, im pretty good at jeopardy, and like doing trivia down at the pub, but gifted? I don't think so.
 
Last edited:
not to be rude, but look at how many people here were on the "gifted" lists (me included) yet we are all just normal everyday citizens, no one here is discovering a cure for cancer, working on some astrophysics thing, leading the world with your forward thinking green company, inventing new things and so on.

But that is a big misconception anyway. People with very high IQs and the greatest intellectual potential don't necessarily perform the "best" in life in the way that you've indicated. In fact, I would hazard a guess that if you took the top 0.5%, you'd find less tangible success of the sort that you've described among that subset than you would among the subset that ranked say in the top 5-10%, intelligence-wise.

The most brilliant people I've known in life had very little interest in practicalities.
 
My two cents:

First of all, I think they have a good method of determining how to get people in there. I never saw a single person who deserved it not given the opportunity. Not one.

Second, I never found it elitist. I don't know anyone who did.

Third, I was in it and found I enjoyed it a lot. It was not just hard work, it was work that really expanded you beyond what could be done in a normal classroom, and I enjoyed the opportunity to do so.

Unfortunately, since my time in it, it has been literally re-arranged entirely. When I was in it, we were bused out of school every third or fourth week for the day to another building. Now it's like some hour-long, once a week class in the elementary school.

Our requirements were a very, very long IQ test as well as observation from teachers. You needed an IQ of at least 130 unless a teacher strongly felt someone slightly below that should be a candidate.

I thought it was great and find it a shame that the movement is regression as opposed to progression.
 
You know the sayings "you teach people how to treat you", and "if you don't respect yourself no one else would"? If you don't treat yourself in a manner that shows clearly to others that you are mentally strong and have self-respect, they'll make their life miserable. Yes, they are nasty people to begin with, but you can't give them a reason to treat you poorly.

My self-esteem improved a great deal once I was no longer surrounded on a daily basis by people who thought it was a blast to make fun of me all the time. Funny how that works.
 
Back
Top Bottom