GIFTED CENTERS NOT BEST USE OF MONEY.

Byline: WENDY DAGER Local View

WHEN I first entered Los Angeles Unified School District's gifted program nearly three decades ago, the experience didn't mean a whole lot to me.

At just 7 years old, however, I did know the basics of being gifted, like how you weren't supposed to reveal your intelligence quotient in polite company. I also knew that having this IQ number made me a part of a group, which, at the time, the Los Angeles school system had labeled with the acronym CORE. I don't remember exactly what it stood for, but I am able to picture the handful of kids who occasionally were pulled out of class to do special projects.

We didn't write formulas for neutron bombs or recipes for fat-free chocolate chip cookies. And these projects never made me feel important or intellectual. The other kids still made fun of my glasses and my overall awkwardness, something children have done to each other from time immemorial.

A lot of the teachers back then weren't particularly nurturing either, a common complaint even now. And today, like thirty years ago, parents remain concerned about their children's education, particularly when it comes to those within the broad category of special needs.

According to a recent Daily News article, ``Smart Kids Lose Out,'' some parents in the LAUSD are a tad miffed that $2.5 million of a possible $71 million windfall will not be used to open up centers for what the article termed ``the best and brightest.''

Parents of some of these gifted children were not allowed to speak at a meeting in which the school board determined how to spend the money. They wanted to tell the district to use the funds to open centers which would offer more than the ``mere 45 minutes of specialized instruction a week'' currently given at schools.

As a parent, I understand why they would want this for their gifted children. As a former attendee of such a program, however, I guarantee that opening the proposed 30 centers for 2,500 students isn't going to make every smart kid brighter or happier or keep him from falling asleep in class.

Nor is a gifted center going to leave a child with the warm, fuzzy feeling that his special needs are being met.

Presumably, what LAUSD parents want is a haven where their gifted children can get mental stimulation beyond their normal classroom assignments. In most cases, such a child is usually already attending a gifted magnet school, enrolled in a gifted class, or in a ``regular'' class and given extra assignments by the teacher. A gifted center will not add much more to a regular curriculum or affect a child in the long term. This responsibility lies with parents, who should be the ones to find proper resources to enrich their child's life.

When I was a kid, my parents took me to museums and the theater. I had oil-painting lessons and there were books of all kinds in our home. I could go to the public library any time I wanted, and I watched educational documentaries on television - long before the inception of today's Discovery and Learning channels.

Gifted children these days have even more options for absorbing knowledge and culture - but they must have direction from their parents - not a fancy center staffed by people who use buzzwords like ``self-esteem'' and ``empowerment.''

The LAUSD should take the $2.5 million and use it to buy textbooks, air conditioning and whatever else they need to make schools better for all students.

The money could also be used to give educators higher salaries. Perhaps then teachers will feel adequately compensated, and there will be fewer parental complaints about the quality of education for our children - gifted or not.