From the data neurobiology is providing, it is evident that nearly all children are born with very complex and unique brain structures. Although each child is different, they all seem to have extraordinary potential. I believe that, if given the opportunity to develop optimally, most children could perform at the level we now call gifted, and it probably would be more natural for them to do so. (Gargiulo, p. 539)
What on earth!? We’re anti-tracking. We’re anti-label. And rightly so, in order not to track students into less than they could be, to know that they are first a person, and not a label. Then why do we call some “gifted and talented?” You better believe I know exactly who they are calling gifted and talented, and if it’s not me, I have received a very clear message about my abilities, and my in-ablities.
Considerations
Anyone who has spent time in a classroom knows that students have different strengths in different subject and skill areas. To ignore the strengths and attend to the needs only is to see students with a deficits lens, to see them by what they are not, or by what they lack. To see them as human beings, we must see them in all reality - with their real challenges and their real strengths, too, and attend to both.
Considerations
Anyone who has spent time in a classroom knows that students have different strengths in different subject and skill areas. To ignore the strengths and attend to the needs only is to see students with a deficits lens, to see them by what they are not, or by what they lack. To see them as human beings, we must see them in all reality - with their real challenges and their real strengths, too, and attend to both.
Elitism. Challenging students may actually balance any elitism born of one's self-perception of being smarter or otherwise more able (Garguilo) because they see that there are limits to their abilities and they too have to work to progress and grow. If they are going to continue to learn, they need to be able to interact with "intellectual peers" to be challenged and learn from them.
Behavior Issues. "Rita Dickinson (1970), the founder of gifted education in Colorado, reported that a large percentage of the gifted children she tested in Denver Public Schools were referred for behavior problems. She discovered that at least half of their parents had no idea their children were gifted, and when parents didn't recognize it, the school didn't either" (Silverman, 1993) Duh. Of course students who are bored will have behavior problems. They're bored. (What do you when you're bored? Either you find a meaningful challenge or another way to make your time worthwhile, such as seeking fun or attention.) We are wasting their time and insulting their dignity by insulting their capacity. Wouldn't it help all of us out if we gave them a more constructive option in our classroom?
Racism and Achievement/Opportunity Gaps. Students who are poor or minority or attend underachieving schools are the ones who stand the most to lose by not being challenged and supported according to their abilities. Already their teachers are teaching to test scores alone for fear of their jobs, giving an education that is, at best, non-transferable to real life. Already, most go home to rougher home lives with less educated parents who have less ability to enrich their academic learning. Already these little ones look to the media and the professional world and see no one like them in the successful spheres who can provide that inspiration: you can do this; you were made to. Unfortunately, teacher and administrative attention in these schools is caught up trying to catch up test scores in lower income schools to save their backsides. Special ed tends to be the emphasis for exceptional education here. In the wealthier schools, on the other hand, money, time, emotional energy, and entitlement (I'm smart, my kid's smart - you have no right to take him out of that class) abound because the students come knowing how to read, write, think scientifically, and speak the language of the school, and because the parents come in expecting success. Here it seems everyone is gifted, and the resources allow for ample enrichment in response to the claim (credible o not). So the wealthy flourish, with the double head-start they've been given. The poor, who start behind, meet a ceiling of circumstance that allows for very nearly no movement up. It becomes a justice issue then, that especially those in poorer schools receive an appropriately challenging education. In terms of turning their and their communities situations around, they need it more.
Gender Differences. Now this is interesting! Dads don't think their kids are gifted (Silverman, 2007). Male researchers similarly think giftedness implies achievement, and what has this or that kid accomplished at such an early age? It is true that what we consider giftedness does not correspond with achievement. Entirely. It does correlate with environment, but more below on that. Women (mothers, researchers, writers) tend to see (and worry about) giftedness as a developmental exception: "My kid's different from the others." That's all I've got. Just saying. It's interesting.
Growth v. Fixed Mindset. The rubber meets the road. Check out Carol Dweck, Stanford psychology professor on mindset (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHW9l_sCEyU for one intro). "Your brain is like a muscle, it gets stronger with use." If kids think their basic intelligence is fixed, or unalterable, they will not try. The "dumb" kids think they are dumb and what can they do about it. The smart kids think they're smart, prop their sense of identity and worth on this, and become afraid to try because they become terrified to fail. They might lose what makes them valuable. In reality, intelligence and skill are like muscles; they get stronger with use. This is not to totally discount dispositions offered by nature, which may affect intelligences and abilities. But Both low and high scoring students benefit with increased scores and skills from a growth mindset. So does labeling a child "gifted and talented," a fixed-context label, even help the child? More accurate (and growth-oriented) labels might be "hard worker," "practiced," or "exposed."
Diverse Gifting. Imagine. "Jimmy was outstanding in many areas. He was so good at science that teachers encouraged him to become a physician or a research scientist; he was such an outstanding reader that his English teachers thought he was bound to be a journalist; he was also a talented musician and could have pursued a career in music. Jimmy was intellectually gifted, gifted in specific academic areas, and talented in the performing arts. Chin Lan was very talented in math and science and should have been identified as gifted in those specific academic areas; in other academic areas, she was ready for the academic challenges provided for others her age. Luis, who performed at grade level in academics, was charismatic and had the ability to get others to do what he wanted; he was gifted in leadership and needed opportunities to develop his skills as a leader. Albert was very creative; his teachers saw his ideas as pushing the limits. Gifted in creative thinking, he was also academically talented in English and Social Studies. Sara was an outstanding musician and took advantage of opportunities to develop her musical talents" (Garguilo 2009 p. 542-43). What a result if we could identify all of the strengths and dispositions of our students and give them (or direct them to) support to build their skills. Admittedly, this is a high ideal. But perhaps one to be aware of and work toward over time. Our student deserve to have specialists in our schools whose job is to provide for these differentiation and supports, both to the students directly and the teachers.
Conclusion. Differentiation up is imperative and may take a variety of shapes and forms. Current labels are not only unhelpful, but detrimental to the achievement and growth of all.
Implications for Adams 14 & Narrowed Curriculum Schools
We are perpetuating and even increasing injustice in our poorer and racially distinct schools by not giving our kids the opportunity to succeed according to their potential. It began a long time ago when independent thinking, social studies, and science were kicked out of the curriculum. But the consequences of NCLP, AYP, and CSAP exert their power, and allowing for general classroom and exceptional services that differentiate up (I do not want to call it gifted and talented anymore) seem daunting and unrealistic. There is enough to swallow as it is. The need and the challenge are both high.
Questions
Is "gifted and talented" labeling terminology beneficial, adequate, or detrimental? Is there different terminology we could use?
Diverse Gifting. Imagine. "Jimmy was outstanding in many areas. He was so good at science that teachers encouraged him to become a physician or a research scientist; he was such an outstanding reader that his English teachers thought he was bound to be a journalist; he was also a talented musician and could have pursued a career in music. Jimmy was intellectually gifted, gifted in specific academic areas, and talented in the performing arts. Chin Lan was very talented in math and science and should have been identified as gifted in those specific academic areas; in other academic areas, she was ready for the academic challenges provided for others her age. Luis, who performed at grade level in academics, was charismatic and had the ability to get others to do what he wanted; he was gifted in leadership and needed opportunities to develop his skills as a leader. Albert was very creative; his teachers saw his ideas as pushing the limits. Gifted in creative thinking, he was also academically talented in English and Social Studies. Sara was an outstanding musician and took advantage of opportunities to develop her musical talents" (Garguilo 2009 p. 542-43). What a result if we could identify all of the strengths and dispositions of our students and give them (or direct them to) support to build their skills. Admittedly, this is a high ideal. But perhaps one to be aware of and work toward over time. Our student deserve to have specialists in our schools whose job is to provide for these differentiation and supports, both to the students directly and the teachers.
Conclusion. Differentiation up is imperative and may take a variety of shapes and forms. Current labels are not only unhelpful, but detrimental to the achievement and growth of all.
Implications for Adams 14 & Narrowed Curriculum Schools
We are perpetuating and even increasing injustice in our poorer and racially distinct schools by not giving our kids the opportunity to succeed according to their potential. It began a long time ago when independent thinking, social studies, and science were kicked out of the curriculum. But the consequences of NCLP, AYP, and CSAP exert their power, and allowing for general classroom and exceptional services that differentiate up (I do not want to call it gifted and talented anymore) seem daunting and unrealistic. There is enough to swallow as it is. The need and the challenge are both high.
Questions
Is "gifted and talented" labeling terminology beneficial, adequate, or detrimental? Is there different terminology we could use?
How do we get NCLB off our backs so there is room for enrichment for all students? Or under NCLB, is there a realistic, pragmatic way to provide for this?
Starting Points
Pathways plans - before beginning units, and ideally using pre-assessment data, develop a bank of project options to chose from, or individualized work folders for those who master concepts quickly. Criteria and learning targets are available in print or presented before the student starts. For more, see Differentiating Instruction in the Regular Classroom by Diane Heacox (2002).
- It is important to remove grade-level ceilings when assessing potentially advanced intellectual levels, such as using higher grade-level tests.
- Some tools include:
- Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Achievement
- Scholastic Assessment Test (SAT)
- Wechsler Intelligence Scale, 4th ed.
- Stanford-Binet Intelligence Test, 5th ed.
- For creativity:
- Tests by E. Paul Torrence (1966, 1998) and Frank Williams (1993)
- Developing and Assessing Products (DAP) Tool (Roberts & Inman, 2009)
- Leadership
- Self, parent, & peer recommendation, portfolios
- Arts
- Assessment by area expert
- RtI - some states have included differentiations up in their 3-tiered RtI processes (Coleman & Hughes 2009).
Coleman, M. R. and Hughes, C. E. (2009.) Meeting the needs of gifted students within an RtI framework. Gifted Child Today, 32(3), 14-17.
Dweck, C. S. (2008.) Mindset: The New Psychology of Success. New York: Ballantine Books.
Garguilo, R. M. (2012.) Special Education in Contemporary Society: An Introduction to Exceptionality. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications.
Heacox, D. (2002.) Differentiating Instruction in the Regular Classroom. Minneapolis: Free Spirit Publishing.
Rollins, K., Mursky, C. V., Shah-Coltrane, S., Johnsen, S. K. (2009.) RtI models for gifted children. Gifted Child Today, 32(3), 21-30.
Silverman, L. K. (2003). What is giftedness? The Boulder Parent, July, 2003, 1,13-14.
No comments:
Post a Comment