This week marks my return to school. No, we are not on duty until the middle of the month, but my district (and others) love to require us to go to professional development during the summer. The funny thing about that is that we are not on duty and therefore are not officially being paid. Of course, that is a different story for a different day. Considering that my summer is virtually over on Tuesday, I figured I would get back tot he thing that I focus on most here at the Hurricane: education.
I don't think I've covered this particular topic here and it came up in our discussions last night. According to the gifted and talented research, those that are gifted and talented should have an IQ of 130 or higher and show giftedness in one other area. That seems pretty simple enough even when we consider that IQ tests have been found to be biased in the past. When I was in school, there were always achievement tests that confirmed giftedness in addition to the IQ tests.
The question for us is simply this: is giftedness evenly distributed in the population or is concentrated in some areas more than others? This presents a particular problem in education. In suburban school districts, the problem is that too many students qualify under the rules I stipulated above. I qualified under those rules. I wasn't considered gifted and talented because there were too many students that met those qualifications. The district could not accommodate all of us, so they set limits to the top ten percent.
On the flip side, in the district where I work, there really isn't ten percent in all of the schools that would qualify. In my particular school, that is the case. So, do you take only those that qualify or do you take the top ten percent? If the questions were only this easy then education would be in good shape. However, in my particular environment we have to ask ourselves why students are not qualifying. Is it a lack of aptitude or a lack of educational opportunities? If students received services would they blossom into the gifted children they really are?
This is a difficult question. In suburban areas we have to make sure we differentiate between students that are high achievers and those that are truly gifted. High achievers are bright and they accomplish a lot, but they may not be gifted. They are typically your straight A students and those that volunteer in class. Yet, while their answers are usually correct, they don't necessarily have the high end creativity that a gifted student might come up with. My daughter is on the verge of school and she is demonstrating gifted tendencies. Will she be labeled or will she be one of those that is gifted, but the district doesn't have enough room to service?
While it is an unpopular and even repugnant notion, I do believe that giftedness is concentrated in certain areas. Living in the land of NASA engineers has a way of creating a higher concentration of gifted children. Not only do gifted parents begat gifted children, but they also have the wherewithal to give their children experiences that will open their minds and tap into their talent. This is one of the reasons why HEAD START was begun. Either the definition of giftedness needs to change or districts need to be honest about their populations and adjust accordingly.
I agree Bubba. The idea I have is that everyone has talent and giftedness is fluid to a certain extent. The problem is that so much early on is wrapped up in reading that a reading problem will mask the talent. Plus some people just aren't talented in traditional academics. Unfortunately, most schools are not set up to accommodate them. You cannot replace what goes on at home. Head Start will help but without help at home you kill the advantage.
A truly insightful post. I have wondered the same things. When I look at my experiences as a gifted student in the 60s, and the exposure that I received, I became really frustrated with the experiences that both my kids had in expensive private schools; where as you indicated so many of the students are gifted. Therefore, some don't receive the opportunities that they would elsewhere. Because I was so frustrated with the current system (public & private), I had the sometimes overwhelming challenge to supplement their education at home. It was difficult because I myself was in graduate school or studying for certifications. But, my kids did have assistance "forced on them", and I became their advocate and researcher for other options to give them the help that they needed going forward. What is unfair is that there are students or future students who don't have that advocate for many reasons. Agree with bubbabobcat that Administrators need to literally earn their pay and figure this out: soon. We are losing too many young people who could make a difference or who have dismals futures because of our lack of creativity or sensibility. I was raised with the mantra that education will change your life; and that failure was not an option. Incidentally,NASA does drive one to do more. It is in the NASA DNA.
Programs should be equipped to accept all that qualify under current definitions of intelligence...gifted intellectual, gifted creative, gifted leader, gifted bs'er. I'm not sure where the gifted athlete would fit academically but perhaps as a peer mentor...makes sense to me.
As part intellectual slob, part advocate for the underdog I find it easy to suggest that research doesn't substantiate any long term benefit from the Head Start program.
I think the real 'potential' value of gifted programs lay in their facility to help children understand that it's not them...it's the rest of the world that is f*cked up.
To me, giftedness is an odd concept. (Even spell check doesn't seem to recognize it.)
I've read that IQ tests measure pretty much just two things: one's ability with words and one's ability with numbers.
They don't measure one's ambition, one's drive, which may be a gift in itself, one that overcomes other deficiencies. They don't measure one's ability to obtain the cooperation of others, perhaps even lead others. They don't measure one's physical organization skills. They don't measure one's ability to compose art or music or movement with such wisdom that others are moved beyond measure.
So, personally, I don't think IQ tests should carry a lot of weight in schools.
Since I feel my early education failed me -- me as an individual, not me as someone who gets along okay in life -- I truly wish each child was in a Montessori school, educated via their natural interests.
I also think that special classes for the "gifted" children may be sop for parents. The two daughters of friends were judged "gifted" but the girls rejected all the special services for them. They wanted to spend more time outside playing.
Or we need an expansion of HEAD START programs so that those with gifted tendencies but not the wherewithal don't fall through the cracks?
As for the arbitrary limits on "giftedness", well that is just plain stupid. But not surprising for you huh Scott? Presumably it has nothing to do with race, AA, quotas, etc. but just plain laziness of school administrators not to come up with creative ways to accommodate all those that qualify within a certain district. And to "find" 10% in a district lacking is also a waste. Wouldn't they be better off redirecting that money to HEAD START if they couldn't find 10% gifted? I imagine in short order you would get your REAL 10% soon enough.