Why Differentiating for Gifted Kids Is Harder

Every once in a while, someone, usually a parent, will complain that teachers don't care about their gifted child or else they would provide appropriate learning experiences for them.  They know that teachers don't have a lot of time, but they insist that, if they really cared, they would MAKE time for them.  While I don't disagree with the idea, the fact is, it does take time - a LOT of time.  It takes more time to differentiate for the gifted child than it does for the learning disabled child, and here is why.

1)  No Appropriate Materials
Materials for teaching are always in short supply.  Many teachers resort to buying some of their own supplies of things they find especially useful in the classroom - extra books, markers, colored pencils, rock collections for a geology unit, costumes for a social studies play, etc.  Even textbooks are often in short supply.  There is one set of science textbooks for 3 classrooms, or the social studies textbooks haven't been updated for 10 years.  Materials to use with gifted kids are usually non-existent, unless the teacher has purchased them him/herself.  This leads to several of the other problems.

2)  No Appropriate Learning Objectives
The goals and learning objectives for your regular students are published and explicit (usually).  There are resources to help with struggling students, both materials and people.  But what about the gifted students?  In my long years of teaching, both regular and substitute, I have rarely found any serious effort to address goals and learning objectives for gifted students.

Developing appropriate goals and learning objectives takes a LOT of time and expertise.  That is why they have curriculum committees and textbook selection committees.  How many districts have a "Gifted Student Standards" Committee?  A learning goal committee for gifted students?  Part of the problem is that gifted students are often widely varying in abilities and needs.  Another part of the problem is that it requires not only knowledge of gifted students, but also extensive knowledge of the subject matter.  This subject matter can be far beyond what most classroom teachers are familiar with.  They are adept at breaking down subject matter for which they are responsible.  But extending subject matter beyond what they are familiar with is far more difficult.   

I have worked with a few mathematics curricula that have explicitly developed activities for "extended" learning.  These activities are intended to be used with the gifted students.  I have never seen them used, but at least they are there.  I have rarely seen objectives for gifted students in other academic subjects. 

3)  Finding Appropriate Materials
Yes, the Internet is wonderful and yes, there are wonderful lessons out there.  Finding those lessons takes a lot of time.  Even if teachers have thought long and hard about what additional objectives they would like to have the gifted student(s) achieve, finding appropriate materials and lessons takes time.

There are a lot of bad lesson plans out there; there are a lot of good lesson plans that would be great for most kids; there are fewer lesson plans that would be great for the gifted students, but are not appropriate for everyone.  Why is it important that they NOT be appropriate for everyone?  Because if everyone in the class can do, enjoy, and learn from the activities, they should be part of the regular curriculum and should not be considered to be differentiation for the gifted student.  Too often, activities in pull-out gifted programs turn into "fun and games for smart kids" - activities that most of the kids in the classroom could have done, but they don't get to, because they are not labeled gifted.  I know, because my own pull-out classroom sometimes resembled this.  There is a danger to this.  The danger is that people will push to have kids participate in these fun activities, even if they don't really need gifted education.  Why not?  They are fun, motivating, and the results don't really matter in terms of grading or learning objectives. 

4)  Teaching and Presenting to Gifted Students
One parent suggested that, in the age of computers, just allowing the gifted students access to computers could keep them busy, motivated, and learning.  Perhaps.  Busy and motivated are especially easy.  Learning?  Possibly.  But what are they learning?  They are learning that learning is usually just fun and games.  That if they have to work hard at it, it isn't as much fun, so why should they do it? 

Perhaps it is simply from my own life, but even as a highly gifted child, I would not seek out difficult learning experiences.  I would not challenge myself.  Perhaps some gifted students do.  Many will not.  Many will not seek out appropriate learning experiences and may even rebel against being required to do something appropriate for their ability level.  Many parents and teachers will defend this as a matter of choice.  We could offer algebra to 7th graders, but if Student X, who is ready for algebra, doesn't want to take it, we will just let him stay in the regular classroom, doing work he has already mastered.  Why do we let smart kids choose to not work hard?  Do we let any other students opt out of difficult material?

If the objectives for the gifted students are well thought out and the materials and lessons planned, when are they presented and by whom?  When does the teacher actually teach the gifted student(s)?  Book groups are usually easy.  The groups can be varying in size and different objectives are generally seamlessly incorporated.  Math groups can sometimes be similarly arranged, though the most frequent alteration in presentation is that students actually switch classrooms for math groups, with one teacher taking the bottom group, one teacher taking the middle group, and one teacher taking the usually larger "top" group.  This top group is not only usually larger than any of the other groups, but it is also not really adequate for the gifted math students.  Typically, the material that is presented is just the standard curriculum that is a bit faster, so they can get ALL of the pages done, not just the bare minimum.  Sometimes, it is the standard curriculum accelerated by one year.

If, instead, the teacher is trying to differentiate for the students that are particularly gifted in social studies or science, it is much more difficult.  Typically, what will happen is that there will be projects for these subjects.  But designing projects that include both the regular curriculum and the learning objectives for the gifted students is difficult.  Instead, what usually seems to happen is that teachers hope that students will seek their own level in their projects.  The objectives and learning standards are vague enough so that they can be construed to be applicable to all ability levels.

5)  Assessing Gifted Students
This shouldn't be a difficult problem, but it often engenders great debate.  Should the gifted students be given As just because they have, indeed, mastered the regular curriculum?  Or should they be graded on the goals and objectives that were developed for them?  On what is a grade to be based?  Should it be what would be expected of any age student who attempts the given material or should the age of the student be taken into consideration?

6)  School Support Personnel
When asked to differentiate for struggling students, a teacher will generally have many different people in the school to turn to for help.  There are literacy specialists, behavior specialists, language learning specialists, learning disability teachers, math specialists, aides, and a number of other people who come to help, both at the school and the district level.  When teachers need to differentiate for gifted students, there are rarely people who are designated to help them.  There used to be a few gifted specialists, but these are rapidly disappearing from most schools.  I worked as a gifted specialist at a middle school.  I was hired for 7 hours a week.  When the specialists are rarely there and are not considered significant members of the staff, teachers cease to rely on them - or to even know how to use them.  

Conclusion:
Differentiating for gifted students is actually HARDER than differentiating for struggling students.   There are probably other reasons than just those outlined above.  I know this won't satisfy the parent whose child needs something more and isn't getting it.  It shouldn't.  But we have to support different ways of helping teachers take care of gifted students.  Blaming them for not differentiating for their gifted students doesn't mean that they can. 

Re: Intensive Small-Group Tutoring and Counseling - NY Times Article

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/27/education/intensive-tutoring-and-counseling-found-to-help-struggling-teenagers.html

This is a great and effective idea, except for one major flaw:  they are paying the tutors $17,000 per year to do this job.  This is well below poverty level in most urban areas.  Why is it that a lot of "solutions" to problems in our culture mean creating new, part-time jobs at poverty level pay?

I guess I get frustrated when solutions to educational problems include having people volunteer or accept very low wages - like substitute teachers. One principal said to me once, "Oh, but don't you get $100 a day?" I said, "Yes, so the maximum amount I could get in a school year, even if I were lucky enough to get jobs EVERY DAY, would be $100 * 180 = $18,000." 

Sure, these tutors could get part time jobs during the summer or weekends - if such jobs were available. So, as soon as something better turns up, the tutor leaves and the students get a new one.  

The tutors do well.  Yes, people should not be greatly surprised that, with 2 to 1 help, plus counseling, these students do markedly better.  That is a good, even great, thing.  But, does it scale up?  I am not so sure. 

I hear repeatedly the claim that you can't just "throw money" at education.  No, you can't.  But there are effective and less effective uses of money.  Millions of dollars spent on standardized testing?  Questionable.  Millions spent on adequate staffing?  More likely.  People cost money; really good people cost a bit more.  


__________

Addendum: The school districts I work for are also increasing the number of half day jobs that are available for subs.  Since it is often very difficult to coordinate the ending time of one half day job with the beginning of another half day job, taking into account driving times between schools, subs frequently take only one half day job.  This cuts sub pay even further.  I suppose, to be fair, it does make it easier to take another regular part time job.  If a sub has another regular part time job that starts some time in the afternoon, that sub could take only morning half day jobs.  Still, it does make transportation costs a larger issue in relation to pay.

Questions about Differentiation

I know I have talked a lot about differentiation - how it is not adequate for highly gifted students, how most teachers don't seem to be able to do it consistently or adequately.  So now I have additional questions.  Has the gifted field's emphasis on differentiation helped?  Are there more accommodations for gifted children or fewer?  Are the needs of more gifted children getting addressed at an appropriate level or not?

I don't know if there is research about this, but I do know that one state I lived in, Illinois, dropped funding for all gifted programs.  I have also been told that a school district neighboring where I live now has eliminated all gifted teacher positions.  The thing that I feared a dozen or so years ago seems to be coming to pass.  Educators of educators tout differentiation -> new teachers are all expected to subscribe to the differentiation mantra -> now that all teachers can differentiate, they can take care of the needs of all students in their classrooms -> special programs are no longer needed.  Only, there are laws about students with disabilities and there are high stakes tests for students who are struggling with the regular curriculum.  So, it turns out that the special teachers who help students with disabilities or those who need extra support are still there - and in even greater numbers.  There are literacy support teachers, numeracy support teachers, ELL teachers, LD teachers, special education aides.  Do you notice the one group that there is no more?  GT teachers. 

Don't get me wrong - I think differentiation is a great thing for teachers to learn to do.  And, as much as they can in the limited time they have available, all teachers (in my opinion) should be able to differentiate for the students in their classes.  But has the gifted field's emphasis on differentiation helped gifted students get the services they need?  Convince me. 

Differentiation at NAGC

OK, I will admit it - I only went to one day of NAGC this year.  I am a substitute teacher, which means I don't make very much money ($95 per day * around 160 days per year = about $15,200, which isn't enough to live on in most places in the US).  And there were no single day registrations available, unless you registered as a parent and went to parent day.  So, I registered as a parent and then went over to the regular meeting and attended the regular sessions.  Maybe that isn't what I was supposed to do, but the woman working the registration desk was the one who recommended it, so I took advantage of it. 

I met up with two people I knew for lunch, Sally L. and Carolyn K and we got into a discussion about differentiation.  I explained that I am opposed to it.  Carolyn K was rather shocked at my assertion, but I further explained that the reason I was and am opposed to emphasizing differentiation for gifted students is that most teachers can't do it.  It is a great idea, but it just isn't working.  As a substitute teacher, I go to dozens of classrooms a year.  As a former teacher of the gifted, I am always looking for evidence that teachers differentiate their instruction for gifted students.  I don't see it.  Sometimes, I will see different spelling lists for different students; different book groups; or kids moving to a different room for math.  But within the individual classrooms, there just isn't much differentiation to be seen.

Some people have told me that, as a sub, I might not see the differentiation that is going on in the classroom on a regular basis.  This is true.  Oftentimes, teachers will dumb down the lesson plans, so that subs can handle their classes.  But, if this were the case, I would expect to see pointers to some indications that this is a different day - kids unsure about assignments; kids with questions different from the majority of other kids' questions; kids with different materials or working on different assignments.  I see these things for the kids with disabilities and for the kids who are struggling with regular classroom work.  I do not see them for gifted kids.

And, I believe Renzulli himself did a study that showed that teachers he trained thought they weren't doing enough differentiation, that they thought they were doing more than they were, and that observers of their classes saw less differentiation than they even thought they were doing.

As I have said before, I think differentiation within the classroom isn't working - especially for HG+ kids.  It isn't consistent enough, it isn't at the correct level, it isn't supported enough, and it isn't at the correct pace.

And now, for Carolyn K, I have an additional question.  How many of the sessions that you went to at NAGC were differentiated?  For me, it was none.  It wouldn't have mattered if I were a newbie GT teacher or a seasoned veteran, none of the talks I went to adjusted for the level(s) of the audience.  It is true that the talks specifically scheduled for parent day were differentiated for them.  That is the kind of differentiation I support and believe works.  But differentiating a single class is hard.  Most people can't or don't do it.  They can differentiate the offerings, as NAGC does, by having a wide range of choices available.  But within each choice, people just don't differentiate what they offer.  And these presenters had months to prepare.  Regular classroom teachers don't have the luxury of that kind of time. 

I will say it again.  I think we need to emphasize different offerings, not differentiation within a single teacher's classroom.  Most teachers (and NAGC presenters) can't or don't do it.

The Logic of Different Abilities

Here is why NCLB and its variations are utterly illogical. Given: people learn at different rates. Some people learn fast, some people learn slowly. Sure, the rates are uneven, but if you average them out over time, they will spread out over presumably a bell shaped curve. Result: If you are teaching each child to 80 or 90% of his or her ability, the curve SHOULD spread out as a cohort of children gets older.

To be more concrete: Let's suppose that one child can learn 100 concepts in a year and another could learn 110 concepts in a year. At the end of one year the difference between the two will be 10 learned concepts. At the end of two years, the children will have mastered 200 and 220 concepts, respectively, bringing the gap to 20 concepts. Each year the gap SHOULD grow. Even if the lower performing student is working to the MAXIMUM of his/her ability, he/she will fall behind. The only way this can be prevented is by holding down the top student.

In reality, the gap could potentially be much wider. I seem to remember reading that average kids learn concepts after approximately seven repetitions. Slower kids need more repetitions; faster kids can learn something with as few as 1 to 3 exposures to the concept. Thus, some students could learn as much as 10 times as much as some other students.

Look at this the other way around: Parents: are your special needs children falling further and further behind each year? Well, that means that the other teachers are doing their job. Your children aren't failures; some may be succeeding incredibly. Some of them may even outgrow their disabilities; others may not. But, even if their disabilities persist, they still shouldn't be deemed failures - nor should their teachers. Board of Education people: if the gap between your lowest students and your highest students isn't getting BIGGER each year, then you are holding your top students back (or the test can't measure adequately the top students' progress).

Yes, we should try to remedy any disabilities that can be remedied. But you need a different yardstick to measure progress with different disabilities. Some disabilities are permanent or semi-permanent and the best teachers in the world could not bring these students up to grade level proficiency. Some disabilities are not permanent and can be remedied, compensated for, or even simply outgrown.

But we also shouldn't deceive ourselves into thinking that just because the achievement gap is shrinking, we are doing a good job. It means that we are neglecting those students who should be moving faster.

If someone can point out the problems with this diatribe, I would appreciate it. Perhaps I am missing something.

Differentiation - It Isn't Enough for HG+ Kids

Yes, I know differentiation is the acceptable mantra for educators these days.  I know I am supposed to tout the virtues of differentiating for every kid in the classroom.  I know that, if potential principals see this, I will not be considered for full time jobs.  But, I also know that, as a sub, I see very little of it.

For anyone who actually reads this, but who doesn't know my background, I will briefly say that I have taught in four states: Massachusetts (private schools), Illinois (public and private schools), Alaska (public and charter schools), and Colorado (public and charter schools).  I have taught, either full time or subbing, in at least a dozen school districts, dozens of schools, and hundreds of different classrooms.  I have gone through extensive training on differentiation and gifted, differentiation and special education, and differentiation in general. 

I have seen very little differentiation in action.  Some teachers will differentiate spelling lists.  Some teachers will have different levels of book groups.  Some teachers will pair up with other teachers and group the students for math classes.  But, if we are talking about meeting the needs of kids outside of the middle of the bell curve, there is very little for those outlier kids.  It can be done - I have seen 3 or 4 teachers who could do it.  I laud them.  But, in general, it isn't happening.

And, I think it is time that educators who are interested in meeting the needs of HG+ gifted students admit that differentiation, as it is practiced (or not practiced) just isn't enough.  It isn't consistent enough, it isn't broad-based enough, and it isn't at the correct level.  The further the gifted student is from the class average, the less appropriate any differentiated accommodations are.

Differentiation is a great thing to train teachers to do.  It is effective to have the things that I mentioned above: leveled math, book groups, leveled spelling, different expectations for writing, etc.  It just isn't enough to meet the needs of the highly, exceptionally, and profoundly gifted students.  And I think it is time to stop pretending that regular classroom teachers can teach all students.

We know that inclusion has worked for a lot of kids with learning disabilities, but we also know that their special teachers, special classes, and supporting aides still have their jobs.  In fact, there are loads of jobs advertised for special education aides.  We know that differentiation isn't enough for these kids.  The simple fact is that they need more support than this.  Why don't we acknowledge the same for the highly, exceptionally, and profoundly gifted students.  The regular classroom teachers just can't meet their needs.

Again:  The regular classroom teachers just can't meet the needs of the highly, exceptionally, and profoundly gifted students. This was true before the great school budget problems; it is even more true now, with class sizes creeping up to ever higher numbers.  It is unfair to classroom teachers to continually demand more and more of them.  They already have more responsibilities and less time than they need in order to be maximally effective.

This rant is targeted mainly at elementary schools, but also somewhat at middle schools / junior highs.  By the time the kids get to high school, we mostly stop pretending that a single teacher can teach all levels of ability in a single class.  AP Calc AB is not differentiated and no one expects that AP Calc teacher to prepare lessons for students who might want to take the class, but who haven't yet mastered algebra.  Nor is the algebra teacher expected to teach calculus to the one kid in the class who is ready for AP Calc AB.  It just doesn't make sense.

For those of us who are interested in the HG+ kids, I think it is time to stop saying that differentiation can solve all of their educational needs.  It isn't happening.

If Teachers Worked Like Doctors

To follow up on yesterday's post, I went to search the Internet to see how much of a doctor's time was actually spent in patient contact. I am not intending here to be a thorough researcher, so I stopped after finding one study here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2709110/. The authors estimated that doctors spent 25.5% of their time in direct contact with patients. Just to make things easier, let's round that off to 25% of their time - 1/4 of their time was spent with patients. Now, no one assumes that what the doctors do with the rest of their time is trivial or unnecessary or that it should not be figured as part of the heavy work load of being a doctor. Yet, they certainly do this with teachers.

Take the example I wrote about yesterday. 8:00 to 3:30 required work day; 15 minutes before kids allowed in; 15 minutes after last bell to get them all out. 30 minutes "duty free" lunch; 30 minutes planning time. 1.5 hours supposedly without kids out of 7.5 hours. That means teachers are in contact with their clients 80% of the day.

Just for curiosity, let's do some math. Year 52 weeks. Doctor gets 4 weeks vacation (a bit conservative, but let it go for now); works 48 weeks. 1/4 of time spent with patients. 12 weeks. Teacher contract: 36 weeks. 80% of time spent with students. 28.8 weeks. Teachers are on direct duty more than twice as much as doctors.

This completely ignores the fact that, not only are teachers in direct contact with their clients more than twice as much as doctors, but they have MANY MORE CLIENTS at the same time - typically 25 times as many. And, I can hear people object: oh, but they are just young children, they are easier to deal with than adults. The only problem is, young children are immature - what a surprise. They do not know how to behave in all normal situations, they are easily distracted, they have all sorts of needs that cannot be ignored, and all of this WHILE the teacher is trying to get them to actually learn something. The only people that think this is easy are people who haven't done it for a significant amount of time.

Truth: There're No Consequences

A friend of mine recently decided to quit subbing, because of the general lack of discipline and brattiness of the kids (she is in a different state from me, but I think the problem is more general than just our two states). She complained that the kids don't understand the meaning of "consequences" any more. As a sub, I often share her frustration. I have frequently come to the point where I seriously consider quitting subbing, too. Only my continuing fascination with observing children and their classroom environments keeps me going.

But here is my current diatribe about consequences:

Part of the problem is that there really ARE no consequences any more. Physical discipline is out. In our schools (the schools I sub in), you can't keep kids after school, because most of them get to and from school on buses, which run VERY tight schedules. You can keep them in from recess, but often the kids who need to be kept in are the kids who need the physical activity the most. And, for various reasons, many of the kids actually WANT to stay in for recess. You can't give them extra work, as they aren't able to finish the work that they have. You can't assign them classroom jobs, as they find the jobs more interesting than the work that they need to do. It doesn't matter if you change their seats, it just means they have to shout a bit louder to talk to their friends across the room. You can send them to the office, but there is an unwritten rule that you can only send one or at most two kids to the office - and if you do that, they think that it is your fault for not being able to handle the discipline problems. You can call their parents, but the parents often can't keep the kids under control either.

In my day, shaming kids into behaving worked for some, but nowadays, they just think it is funny to be ignorant - and, in terms of school work, being ignorant has its rewards. If they are ignorant enough, they get sent to a tutor, where they get one-on-one attention and if they play ignorant with the tutor, the tutor will usually give them the answers to all of the questions as they work through them.

I have noticed this with direction-giving, too. Kids will pretty much ignore directions given to the whole class. It is to their advantage to do so. After the directions have been given, all they have to do is get this puzzled look on their faces and say they don't understand, and the teacher will explain the whole thing again for them individually. If they still look confused, the teacher will usually give them an answer or two and will sometimes even restructure the assignment so it is a bit easier.

As far as discipline goes, there are a few things left that work: denying them a coveted privilege, such as inviting someone to eat lunch with them, may work. Putting them in an isolated spot to work can help, if there is such a place in the room or in the hall. But the arsenal for subs is pretty limited. Working for a class reward (such as an extra recess) sometimes works. But often, for me, it feels WRONG to reward them for behavior that should be the norm - just to keep them from behavior that is unacceptable.

I don't blame her for quitting.

Does 90% Equal an A? Or 93%? Who Knows?

There has been a recent discussion on GT-Families about grading scales - in different parts of the country different percentages are used to determine what constitutes an A, a B, etc. But my feeling is that unless there is a standard reference of curriculum and test, percentage is a completely undetermined measure. It is like saying that I can eat half of a pizza. Unless you know how big the pizza is, that tells you very little.

(from post to GT-Families)

Why I Think the Actual Percentage Behind the Grades Means Nothing
by Laura Walsh

Test 1 on Cinderella
1. How many stepsisters did Cinderella have?
2. Was Cinderella's stepmother kind to her?
3. In the movie version, what animals helped Cinderella (name two)? (2 points)
4. Did Cinderella get to go to the ball?
5. Did Cinderella leave the ball on time?
6. What were Cinderella's shoes made out of?
7. Which girls were supposed to try on the glass slipper?
8. What happened when the glass slipper broke?
9. What happened at the end of the story?

Test 2 on Cinderella
1. What rank did Cinderella's father have in the realm?
2. Explain the derivation of Cinderella's nickname and the meaning of the original name.
3. What is the sociological significance of the stepmother in fairy tales?
4. How does the absence of the original mother effect the fairy tale?
5. Compare the stepmother and the stepsisters to people in other fairy tales?
6. What is the significance of the fairy godmother?
7. Why are Cinderella's slippers made of glass, when shoes are normally never made of this material?
8. Why is it psychologically important to the story that the prince be kind and handsome? How would the story change if the prince were fat or ugly? (two points)
9. Compare the Disney version of Cinderella to a Cinderella story from another country in the world.

School Rant

From a news report: 'Neil Bush, brother of President George W. Bush, stated that he endured pressure from a private school in Houston to medicate his son Pierce with Ritalin for ADHD incorrectly diagnosed by the school. "There is a systemic problem in this country, where schools are often forcing parents to turn to Ritalin," said Bush, 47, who spent years researching the issue. "It's obvious to me that we have a crisis in this country." Neil Bush also said, "The problem is, it isn't the kids that are broken. It's the system that is failing to engage children in the classroom," and "My heart goes out to any parents who are being led to believe their kids have a disorder or are disabled."'

And I get tired of people blaming the whole problem on the teachers failing to "engage" children in the classroom. There are many kids who spend more hours outside of school watching TV and playing video and computer games than they spend sitting in the classrooms. And then they come to school and expect to be entertained and "engaged" there. Kids who used to run around and play physically when they weren't in school don't nowadays. No wonder they have too much energy. And they watch so much TV/video/computer games that they have attention spans of gnats.

When I went to elementary, junior high, and high school, I never expected it to be a 7 hour game every day. Yes, school needs to be interesting, but I am getting tired of people expecting it to be entertaining. Perhaps it is the passivity of this viewpoint that irritates me. Children and their parents expect them to be engaged BY TEACHERS in their school work; they don't expect to engage THEMSELVES in the pursuit of learning.

And while I am complaining, I would like to ask why it is that kids nowadays think that they have to talk all of the time? Whenever I lament as a sub that I have had difficulty with a class that talked a bit too much, teacher after teacher will complain that the kids are talking all of the time in their regular classes, too. You get the kids quiet, so they can listen to instruction or directions on how to do something and the second you open your mouth to speak, they start talking again. This can and does go on for 20 minutes or more and the only thing that stops it is sending one or more kids to the school disciplinarian. That works for about 5 minutes and then you have to threaten them again. Or teachers will put names on the board and take time off of recess for excessive talking. The only two other things that stop the chatter are movies or TV and tests. Even tests work for only the part of the test where everyone is working. As soon as one kid finishes, the talking starts again.

I have tried thinking about causes for this behavior and the major ones I can think of are:

1) When kids watch TV or movies or actively play computer or video games, they are not talking. In fact, they seem to be passively receptive, even when they are actively pushing buttons for a video game. So when they finish this type of activity, they have a greater than normal need to connect with other people and they talk, talk, talk.

2) Kids are not taught to listen to instructions or conversation. They are so visually oriented (TV, video, and computers again) that their auditory processing is less capable. And they have learned very well in school that, if they do not pay attention to verbal instruction given to the whole class, once they are given the assignment, all they have to do is complain that they don't understand, and the teacher will give them individual help, often complete with several answers for which they have to do little or no work.

I guess I am feeling cantankerous today. Sorry.