Washington Post's Article by Jay Mathews about Gifted Education
The article is a critique of the book Dumbing Down by Jim Delisle. I am in the middle of reading the book, so I cannot speak to the ending of the book as Mr. Mathews does, but I would like to turn one of his main arguments on its head.
He asks about the kids who do not qualify for gifted education service, missing cut-offs by a few points, or not having enough of the qualifications for a specific program. This is not a problem that is unique to gifted education. This is a perennial problem with special education services across the board. What happens to the child who is struggling to learn to read, but doesn't quite qualify for literacy intervention? What happens to the children who almost qualify for other special education interventions? Do we stop offering special education because there is a cut-off for services? In most cases, this last question would be answered with a vehement "No". We do not stop offering special education classes just because some students don't quite qualify. Most people recognize that as an absurdity. Classroom teachers would be urged to "differentiate" for these students. There would be a whole group of specialists who could be consulted to assist the regular teacher. Materials, for example, high interest - low difficulty books, would be provided in the school for use with students needing extra supports.
Regular classroom teachers, in my experience, can handle ability ranges of up to two grade levels above or below the nominal grade level of the classroom (depending on the ages of the students). Textbooks are generally written with more material in them than what is actually needed to master the concepts.
So what happens to the students who do not get accepted into the gifted program? What happens to the students who do not qualify for special education services? Teachers continue to monitor them and to provide support. The students who do not quite qualify for gifted services often do reasonably well. These are the students that teachers often enjoy - good learners, sometimes leaders. Those who do not fit those descriptions are watched for other needs.
We do not eliminate the selectivity of the special education programs just because some kids don't quite qualify. We continue to monitor the needs of those who don't quite qualify and see if they, in the future, might need such interventions.
I will concede a point by Mr. Mathews, however. We need more definitive study of the effects of gifted programs, including gifted interventions of all types. The studies, however, shouldn't just be confined to those who barely qualified for gifted programs and those who barely did not. They should also include studies of the effects on students in places that have gifted programs and compare them to places that do not - if we could just find enough places with good gifted programs.
Showing posts with label gifted_education. Show all posts
Showing posts with label gifted_education. Show all posts
Saturday, October 11, 2014
Sunday, September 28, 2014
Teachers' Manual - Math Differentiation
I taught a 4th grade math lesson the other day and enjoyed it a lot. I don't know how the particular group I had was chosen, but I suspect that they were selected on the basis of their above grade level achievement. Since I have been on the look out for explicit instructions in the teachers' manuals for dealing with kids who have no trouble with the grade level material, I looked carefully at the teachers' manual for this lesson.
In this particular lesson, there were instructions for how to deal with students who could readily do the types of word problems the lesson was addressing. "Give them multi-step problems to solve." The problem is, the teachers' manual did not include any examples of such multi-step problems. And the question I have is, why weren't example problems included in the teachers' manual or perhaps an extension worksheet? Why does each teacher need to re-invent the wheel for their gifted students?
The teacher I subbed for teaches some remedial reading groups, in addition to this math class. There are huge boxes of materials for use with students with reading difficulties. There are step-by-step goals for these kids. Why aren't there analogous materials for kids who can do MORE than the standard curriculum?
Why is the only help for differentiating for gifted kids, "Give them multi-step problems to solve." with no indications of what such problems might look like?
Sigh.
In this particular lesson, there were instructions for how to deal with students who could readily do the types of word problems the lesson was addressing. "Give them multi-step problems to solve." The problem is, the teachers' manual did not include any examples of such multi-step problems. And the question I have is, why weren't example problems included in the teachers' manual or perhaps an extension worksheet? Why does each teacher need to re-invent the wheel for their gifted students?
The teacher I subbed for teaches some remedial reading groups, in addition to this math class. There are huge boxes of materials for use with students with reading difficulties. There are step-by-step goals for these kids. Why aren't there analogous materials for kids who can do MORE than the standard curriculum?
Why is the only help for differentiating for gifted kids, "Give them multi-step problems to solve." with no indications of what such problems might look like?
Sigh.
Monday, September 01, 2014
Representation of Giftedness in Recent Books
I just finished reading two books that dealt peripherally with schools for the gifted, one of which also had an important character who was gifted. In both cases, the schools for the gifted were portrayed as places filled with mean characters and unrealistic demands. One school was actually more like a prep school, but the main character was asked to leave the school when it became obvious that he wasn't doing well academically.
I understand that not all schools are warm and welcoming places, but it was rather painful to realize that the reason these particular schools were portrayed in such negative ways is because smart kids went there - kids who spent 3 weeks constructing their own solar panels - in 4th grade; kids who talked about science and not sports; kids who made were upset if you cost their team points, because you spent more than 5 minutes and 48 seconds in the bathroom.
And, what was the important character like? All of the typical characteristics of "genius" good kids. Not great at playing sports, but good at analyzing the game and the characteristics of the other team. In free time, he reads a book. When he plays games with a brother, he lets the brother win sometimes.
Both authors went out of their way to portray all of the negative stereotypes of schools for smart kids and the second author managed to include just about every stereotype of gifted boys, too.
It was supremely depressing.
I understand that not all schools are warm and welcoming places, but it was rather painful to realize that the reason these particular schools were portrayed in such negative ways is because smart kids went there - kids who spent 3 weeks constructing their own solar panels - in 4th grade; kids who talked about science and not sports; kids who made were upset if you cost their team points, because you spent more than 5 minutes and 48 seconds in the bathroom.
And, what was the important character like? All of the typical characteristics of "genius" good kids. Not great at playing sports, but good at analyzing the game and the characteristics of the other team. In free time, he reads a book. When he plays games with a brother, he lets the brother win sometimes.
Both authors went out of their way to portray all of the negative stereotypes of schools for smart kids and the second author managed to include just about every stereotype of gifted boys, too.
It was supremely depressing.
Tuesday, August 26, 2014
Why Should Each Teacher Differentiate for Gifted Students?
Differentiation is hard. It is even harder to differentiate for gifted students. (Why Differentiating for Gifted Kids Is Harder) But a key question is also, why do we depend on classroom teachers to differentiate for gifted kids? Why aren't measures in place in the schools to accommodate gifted students?
When kids with a wide array of distinctly different learning needs must have different instructional support, their teachers get significant help from extensive full-time staff, including teachers and aides. When teachers are asked to differentiate for gifted students, there is frequently NOTHING available for the teacher to use and no one to ask. There isn't usually anything in their own education and training to fall back on. They may have had one or two lectures in their teacher training coursework addressing the needs of gifted students. But what do they actually TEACH when one of their students is way beyond everyone else in her knowledge of the fundamentals of biology? And, the question for this post, why should each teacher differentiate for their gifted student(s)? Why isn't someone in the district already responsible for drawing up objectives, benchmarks, and learning activities for these children? Why is each teacher charged with re-inventing the wheel for each gifted child?
It is true that each gifted child might be vastly different from another one. But, that just makes it harder for each individual classroom teacher. School districts, on the other hand, will usually have at least a few students with roughly similar needs. Why shouldn't the school district already have materials, objectives, benchmarks, and learning activities available for teachers to use? Or better yet, why don't schools have teachers available who are responsible for delivering these things to the gifted students?
Most of the students with special needs receive at least part of their instruction - the part that specifically addresses their learning needs - from a special teacher. Gifted students should be no exception. Their needs should be addressed specifically by a special teacher who is prepared to deal with them.
When kids with a wide array of distinctly different learning needs must have different instructional support, their teachers get significant help from extensive full-time staff, including teachers and aides. When teachers are asked to differentiate for gifted students, there is frequently NOTHING available for the teacher to use and no one to ask. There isn't usually anything in their own education and training to fall back on. They may have had one or two lectures in their teacher training coursework addressing the needs of gifted students. But what do they actually TEACH when one of their students is way beyond everyone else in her knowledge of the fundamentals of biology? And, the question for this post, why should each teacher differentiate for their gifted student(s)? Why isn't someone in the district already responsible for drawing up objectives, benchmarks, and learning activities for these children? Why is each teacher charged with re-inventing the wheel for each gifted child?
It is true that each gifted child might be vastly different from another one. But, that just makes it harder for each individual classroom teacher. School districts, on the other hand, will usually have at least a few students with roughly similar needs. Why shouldn't the school district already have materials, objectives, benchmarks, and learning activities available for teachers to use? Or better yet, why don't schools have teachers available who are responsible for delivering these things to the gifted students?
Most of the students with special needs receive at least part of their instruction - the part that specifically addresses their learning needs - from a special teacher. Gifted students should be no exception. Their needs should be addressed specifically by a special teacher who is prepared to deal with them.
Wednesday, August 20, 2014
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.
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.
Thursday, July 10, 2014
To Label or Not to Label Gifted Kids
There is an active debate about labeling gifted kids going on right now in The Brain Cafe on Facebook. I gave my opinion to start with and it is similar to the opinion I expressed in a recent blog hop. (See May posts.)
I am a bit dismayed that we keep having this debate over and over and over again. Should we use the word gifted? Should we identify gifted kids? Shouldn't we just give services to anyone who needs them?
Well, yes, ideally, we would just give services to anyone who needs them. But, in case people haven't noticed, that isn't the way most schools work. Funding isn't just allocated for some amorphous program to help kids with their needs. That is regular school and it isn't really adequate for gifted kids. I have complained loudly and frequently about the fact that regular teachers can't and don't differentiate enough for gifted kids. And, no, it is NOT just a matter of more training. You can come up with all the "should"s that you want - it isn't happening. Teachers SHOULD differentiate for their outlier kids. They don't. There SHOULD be resources available for teachers to use with their outlier kids. There aren't. Teachers SHOULD take time to help the outlier kids with their specific needs. They don't HAVE the time. So which outlier kids actually get services? The kids with labels. BD, ESL, ELL, LD, etc. Maybe it SHOULDn't be that way, but it is. If you want a gifted program, you need labels. Within those labels, there can be a huge range of flexibility.
Personally, I am staying out of the theoretical argument now. I can see the theory both ways. But I want results and I want to see them across the board, not just in the best or most exemplary schools. From what I can see, you need labels, you need specific identification, and you need specific programs - programs targeted to labeled kids. We need specific programs to target the kids who are labeled GT, in addition to all of the other labeled programs.
I am a bit dismayed that we keep having this debate over and over and over again. Should we use the word gifted? Should we identify gifted kids? Shouldn't we just give services to anyone who needs them?
Well, yes, ideally, we would just give services to anyone who needs them. But, in case people haven't noticed, that isn't the way most schools work. Funding isn't just allocated for some amorphous program to help kids with their needs. That is regular school and it isn't really adequate for gifted kids. I have complained loudly and frequently about the fact that regular teachers can't and don't differentiate enough for gifted kids. And, no, it is NOT just a matter of more training. You can come up with all the "should"s that you want - it isn't happening. Teachers SHOULD differentiate for their outlier kids. They don't. There SHOULD be resources available for teachers to use with their outlier kids. There aren't. Teachers SHOULD take time to help the outlier kids with their specific needs. They don't HAVE the time. So which outlier kids actually get services? The kids with labels. BD, ESL, ELL, LD, etc. Maybe it SHOULDn't be that way, but it is. If you want a gifted program, you need labels. Within those labels, there can be a huge range of flexibility.
Personally, I am staying out of the theoretical argument now. I can see the theory both ways. But I want results and I want to see them across the board, not just in the best or most exemplary schools. From what I can see, you need labels, you need specific identification, and you need specific programs - programs targeted to labeled kids. We need specific programs to target the kids who are labeled GT, in addition to all of the other labeled programs.
Thursday, May 01, 2014
The Gifted Label
I didn't commit to writing a post about this topic, because I am still not sure where I stand in relation to it.
On the one hand, I acknowledge that the term "gifted" is misunderstood, misused, and considered slightly offensive by some people. On the other hand, I don't think it is necessarily the word itself that is at fault.
I have been teaching since 1971. Before that, my mother was a teacher, and her mother as well. So, we have a long history of being involved in education. My father was also a school board member and both my parents were involved in the establishment of the Iowa TAG subgroup of the Council on Exceptional Children. In those many years, the term for slow learners has changed over and over again. The earliest term I can remember is "retarded". It was intended as a simple descriptor. These children learn more slowly in relation to the other children. But it acquired a negative connotation, so other terms were substituted, MR, EMR, learning disabled, and more. In some cases, the terms became more descriptive and more definitive; in others, it was hoped that they would be perceived as less undesirable.
Over the years, I think teachers, school personnel, and the general public have all gotten to be more understanding of slow learners, but I am not sure that it is due to more descriptive or more well-defined designations for them. I would like to think that it is more due to improved knowledge about their capabilities and methods to help them achieve more and be integrated into the regular lives of school children.
It is thus with some reservation that I look at whether "gifted" should be changed to something else. Are we trying to better describe the concept of giftedness and look differently at the capabilities of gifted children (and adults) or is it because of a negative connotation? In my experience, the negative perception of the term "gifted" is partly due to the reality of giftedness, not the term itself. Examples: a) I was in the teachers' lounge eating lunch. I said something in response to the general conversation. I was told, "You're too smart for us." b) I was speculating about some phenomena - its causes and consequences. My children said (with great exasperation), "Do you have to analyze EVERYTHING?" In neither of these cases was the word "gifted" even close to being mentioned. The negative perception was for me - a gifted adult. Both examples were rejections of ME for being who I am. In the case of my children, I will forgive them because of their youth and their teenage critical natures at the time. But the first example has happened under slightly different circumstances over and over again. I am sorry I can't appear to be not gifted at times. I have tried "code switching" - changing my speech to match the types of conversations I am a part of. It works, most of the time - or at least I used to think it did. Now, I am not so sure. Eventually, I get "outed" - by something I say, usually.
Thus, I feel that part of the problem with the word "gifted" is not the word itself, but the person to whom the label is applied. We represent some things that people find uncomfortable. As with the terms for slow learners, it makes many people uncomfortable to acknowledge the people, so the term keeps changing in an attempt to show that we really don't want to make people feel bad.
On the other hand, "gifted" isn't exactly a descriptive term. It doesn't say anything about how the process of learning or being is different for that person. "Retarded" and all of its replacements can at least be credited with that. "Learning disabled", though vague, at least indicates that there is some learning process that, for that particular student, is more difficult than normal.
The problem, as MANY people have said, is that there is no good alternative. "Smart" could be a catch-all descriptor, except that it, too, isn't very descriptive. "Fast learner" only describes a portion of gifted people. Some learn fast; others learn deeply; still others think broadly and creatively. Should all these acquire different designations? "Persons with high intelligence", as suggested by Dr. Wenda Sheard, is a bit cumbersome and is only a bit more descriptive than "gifted".
I don't know. Like Shaun Hately, I think labeling is actually helpful. It gives people an entry into a way of thinking about that individual. Most people understand that the label is only a beginning, and that it just points to some things that might need to be considered. Just like "learning disabled", it signals that there is something specific here that needs to be looked at.
Other blogs referenced:
http://wendasheard.wordpress.com/2014/05/01/on-dropping-the-g-bomb/
http://chockyschild.wordpress.com/2014/05/01/warning-may-contain-nuts/
On the one hand, I acknowledge that the term "gifted" is misunderstood, misused, and considered slightly offensive by some people. On the other hand, I don't think it is necessarily the word itself that is at fault.
I have been teaching since 1971. Before that, my mother was a teacher, and her mother as well. So, we have a long history of being involved in education. My father was also a school board member and both my parents were involved in the establishment of the Iowa TAG subgroup of the Council on Exceptional Children. In those many years, the term for slow learners has changed over and over again. The earliest term I can remember is "retarded". It was intended as a simple descriptor. These children learn more slowly in relation to the other children. But it acquired a negative connotation, so other terms were substituted, MR, EMR, learning disabled, and more. In some cases, the terms became more descriptive and more definitive; in others, it was hoped that they would be perceived as less undesirable.
Over the years, I think teachers, school personnel, and the general public have all gotten to be more understanding of slow learners, but I am not sure that it is due to more descriptive or more well-defined designations for them. I would like to think that it is more due to improved knowledge about their capabilities and methods to help them achieve more and be integrated into the regular lives of school children.
It is thus with some reservation that I look at whether "gifted" should be changed to something else. Are we trying to better describe the concept of giftedness and look differently at the capabilities of gifted children (and adults) or is it because of a negative connotation? In my experience, the negative perception of the term "gifted" is partly due to the reality of giftedness, not the term itself. Examples: a) I was in the teachers' lounge eating lunch. I said something in response to the general conversation. I was told, "You're too smart for us." b) I was speculating about some phenomena - its causes and consequences. My children said (with great exasperation), "Do you have to analyze EVERYTHING?" In neither of these cases was the word "gifted" even close to being mentioned. The negative perception was for me - a gifted adult. Both examples were rejections of ME for being who I am. In the case of my children, I will forgive them because of their youth and their teenage critical natures at the time. But the first example has happened under slightly different circumstances over and over again. I am sorry I can't appear to be not gifted at times. I have tried "code switching" - changing my speech to match the types of conversations I am a part of. It works, most of the time - or at least I used to think it did. Now, I am not so sure. Eventually, I get "outed" - by something I say, usually.
Thus, I feel that part of the problem with the word "gifted" is not the word itself, but the person to whom the label is applied. We represent some things that people find uncomfortable. As with the terms for slow learners, it makes many people uncomfortable to acknowledge the people, so the term keeps changing in an attempt to show that we really don't want to make people feel bad.
On the other hand, "gifted" isn't exactly a descriptive term. It doesn't say anything about how the process of learning or being is different for that person. "Retarded" and all of its replacements can at least be credited with that. "Learning disabled", though vague, at least indicates that there is some learning process that, for that particular student, is more difficult than normal.
The problem, as MANY people have said, is that there is no good alternative. "Smart" could be a catch-all descriptor, except that it, too, isn't very descriptive. "Fast learner" only describes a portion of gifted people. Some learn fast; others learn deeply; still others think broadly and creatively. Should all these acquire different designations? "Persons with high intelligence", as suggested by Dr. Wenda Sheard, is a bit cumbersome and is only a bit more descriptive than "gifted".
I don't know. Like Shaun Hately, I think labeling is actually helpful. It gives people an entry into a way of thinking about that individual. Most people understand that the label is only a beginning, and that it just points to some things that might need to be considered. Just like "learning disabled", it signals that there is something specific here that needs to be looked at.
Other blogs referenced:
http://wendasheard.wordpress.com/2014/05/01/on-dropping-the-g-bomb/
http://chockyschild.wordpress.com/2014/05/01/warning-may-contain-nuts/
Friday, April 25, 2014
Teaching GT Kids
OK. I will just admit it. I love teaching GT kids. I was at a charter school for GT kids today - 5th and 6th grades and I really enjoyed the day.
First of all, the atmosphere of a GT school is different. There is an enjoyment of learning that I don't usually see at other schools. The teacher left some "Plexer" style worksheets for them to do if they had some time and the kids grabbed them enthusiastically. Then later in the day, they were reading aloud from a book with multiple characters and they really enjoyed listening to different kids read their parts. There was a willingness to tackle problems and think about the implications of different aspects of their learning.
And the students are also a bit different - the interest in things; the acceptance of each other; the acceptance of "the sub" as a person of interest and not an adversary.
It was fun.
I suppose this is one reason why teachers in regular classrooms sometimes feel that teaching GT kids is "easy". In general, they WERE more compliant that kids I teach in regular classrooms. Their enthusiasm carries over to their work and it makes teaching more interesting and more fun. And, in general, as this is a charter school, their parents are committed to their education. The parents who picked up the kids seemed genuinely interested in what their children had to say.
As a sub, I can't really tell much about their ability levels. My guess is that most of them were moderately gifted, with a sprinkling of students above and below that. I still didn't see accommodations for kids who would be outliers, even in this environment, the EG and PG kids, but the general attitude that learning is interesting should make it more comfortable and accepting even for those students.
Good day, even though I am coming off of an illness and am not at 100% myself.
First of all, the atmosphere of a GT school is different. There is an enjoyment of learning that I don't usually see at other schools. The teacher left some "Plexer" style worksheets for them to do if they had some time and the kids grabbed them enthusiastically. Then later in the day, they were reading aloud from a book with multiple characters and they really enjoyed listening to different kids read their parts. There was a willingness to tackle problems and think about the implications of different aspects of their learning.
And the students are also a bit different - the interest in things; the acceptance of each other; the acceptance of "the sub" as a person of interest and not an adversary.
It was fun.
I suppose this is one reason why teachers in regular classrooms sometimes feel that teaching GT kids is "easy". In general, they WERE more compliant that kids I teach in regular classrooms. Their enthusiasm carries over to their work and it makes teaching more interesting and more fun. And, in general, as this is a charter school, their parents are committed to their education. The parents who picked up the kids seemed genuinely interested in what their children had to say.
As a sub, I can't really tell much about their ability levels. My guess is that most of them were moderately gifted, with a sprinkling of students above and below that. I still didn't see accommodations for kids who would be outliers, even in this environment, the EG and PG kids, but the general attitude that learning is interesting should make it more comfortable and accepting even for those students.
Good day, even though I am coming off of an illness and am not at 100% myself.
Wednesday, January 22, 2014
Gifted Goal Setting
I was subbing not long ago and while I was cleaning up the room, some other teachers were having a planning session there. They were discussing goal setting for their gifted students. Whenever I hear people discussing gifted students, I listen. They knew I was there, so I don't feel like it was eavesdropping - just interest.
What were their goals for their gifted students (elementary age)? Academically: they should score a 4 on the state tests in either math or reading (depending on their area of identification). How would they accomplish this? They should be included in the higher group of math class or the higher groups in their classes for reading. Affectively: they should display good social behaviors. How would this be accomplished? They should attend the counseling sessions for GT identified students.
I am still thinking about these as goals, but I am disappointed that they seem so canned. Are all of these GT kids so similar that they have nearly the same goals? Are high scores on state standardized tests our best measure of acceptable achievement? Is simple attendance at group counseling sessions a measure of success?
A few years ago, I had a job as a GT coordinator for a school. I wasn't in the job when the goals for these students were developed, but I did have to evaluate the achievement of the goals at the end of the year. I was pretty taken aback by some of the goals. I don't remember them exactly, but they were on the order of: "Get A's on all of my work." "Win the hockey tournament." "Turn in 80% of my homework."
It seems to me that we need to think a bit more about this goal setting requirement. What is a good goal? How can we encourage kids and teachers to set good goals? How detailed do the plans have to be for achieving the goals? Who decides if the goal has been met? How often do we look at setting goals? Who is involved in setting them? Ideally, the goals need to be set for each particular child. Achieving a 4 on the state test in math may be a good goal for many students, but it is rather limiting. Is the only math worth learning that which will be tested on the state tests? What if the student could have achieved that 4 without learning anything new for the whole year? What if the student is a model student, does all of the work, gets all of the answers right, but has no idea why math is of any interest other than just filling in bubbles or clicking boxes?
Teachers are overworked and I do not blame them for looking for simple, canned goals, especially since they are required to set these goals with little (or no) training in gifted education. But I am sad for the GT kids. One teacher remarked, as they were entering the goals on their computers, that they do these things already. They have groups for math and reading and the bi-weekly counseling session. In essence, she was pointing out that they don't need to do anything different. Goals set; learning plan implemented. Now it was just up to the state test to determine if the kids met their goals. Done.
What were their goals for their gifted students (elementary age)? Academically: they should score a 4 on the state tests in either math or reading (depending on their area of identification). How would they accomplish this? They should be included in the higher group of math class or the higher groups in their classes for reading. Affectively: they should display good social behaviors. How would this be accomplished? They should attend the counseling sessions for GT identified students.
I am still thinking about these as goals, but I am disappointed that they seem so canned. Are all of these GT kids so similar that they have nearly the same goals? Are high scores on state standardized tests our best measure of acceptable achievement? Is simple attendance at group counseling sessions a measure of success?
A few years ago, I had a job as a GT coordinator for a school. I wasn't in the job when the goals for these students were developed, but I did have to evaluate the achievement of the goals at the end of the year. I was pretty taken aback by some of the goals. I don't remember them exactly, but they were on the order of: "Get A's on all of my work." "Win the hockey tournament." "Turn in 80% of my homework."
It seems to me that we need to think a bit more about this goal setting requirement. What is a good goal? How can we encourage kids and teachers to set good goals? How detailed do the plans have to be for achieving the goals? Who decides if the goal has been met? How often do we look at setting goals? Who is involved in setting them? Ideally, the goals need to be set for each particular child. Achieving a 4 on the state test in math may be a good goal for many students, but it is rather limiting. Is the only math worth learning that which will be tested on the state tests? What if the student could have achieved that 4 without learning anything new for the whole year? What if the student is a model student, does all of the work, gets all of the answers right, but has no idea why math is of any interest other than just filling in bubbles or clicking boxes?
Teachers are overworked and I do not blame them for looking for simple, canned goals, especially since they are required to set these goals with little (or no) training in gifted education. But I am sad for the GT kids. One teacher remarked, as they were entering the goals on their computers, that they do these things already. They have groups for math and reading and the bi-weekly counseling session. In essence, she was pointing out that they don't need to do anything different. Goals set; learning plan implemented. Now it was just up to the state test to determine if the kids met their goals. Done.
Monday, December 02, 2013
Interview Question I Won't Ever Ask
At the end of those canned questions that they ask you at an interview, they also usually ask the canned question: Do you have any questions for us? I have some stock questions I generally ask, but there is one question I wish I could ask, but have never had the courage to actually do so.
Most of the people who have read other posts on this blog know that, while I think differentiation for gifted students is a good idea, I think that it isn't a good strategy for gifted educators to tout it as a GIFTED strategy. Teachers just aren't doing it. They may have been trained to do it; they may think they are doing it; but if they are, it isn't having much visible effect.
So here is the interview question: if you truly believe in differentiation, why are there still learning disabilities teachers, reading support teachers, math support teachers, BD teachers, ESL teachers, ELL teachers, etc.? If we accept that these students need more support than the regular classroom teacher can offer, why do we assume that s/he can offer enough support for gifted students? Why is it that the only outlier students with different needs that don't have special teachers are usually the gifted students?
And, no, extending the curriculum isn't easy for teachers. It requires going beyond what they regularly teach, finding resources and materials that they don't normally use.
Most of the people who have read other posts on this blog know that, while I think differentiation for gifted students is a good idea, I think that it isn't a good strategy for gifted educators to tout it as a GIFTED strategy. Teachers just aren't doing it. They may have been trained to do it; they may think they are doing it; but if they are, it isn't having much visible effect.
So here is the interview question: if you truly believe in differentiation, why are there still learning disabilities teachers, reading support teachers, math support teachers, BD teachers, ESL teachers, ELL teachers, etc.? If we accept that these students need more support than the regular classroom teacher can offer, why do we assume that s/he can offer enough support for gifted students? Why is it that the only outlier students with different needs that don't have special teachers are usually the gifted students?
And, no, extending the curriculum isn't easy for teachers. It requires going beyond what they regularly teach, finding resources and materials that they don't normally use.
Tuesday, October 08, 2013
Colorado Association for Gifted and Talented - CAGT 2013 - Day Two
Since I do not have a regular position and I just sub, I chose the sessions I attended at this conference mainly on the basis of simple personal interest. I don't need to focus on specific areas of education. I could just go where I pleased.
So, for the second day, I started with a presentation by Lindsey Reinert and Penelope Heinigk titled "Going Deeper with Technology". They specifically addressed one of the major concerns I have had about the way technology is typically used by classroom teachers in the elementary schools. The topic is assigned and kids are told to use a given technology, usually PowerPoint or Prezi to make a presentation on their topic. Sometimes, to help the kids along, the teachers give out requirements for the presentation. Example: at some time or another in their schooling, kids will be assigned the "do a slide show about your favorite animal" topic. The teacher specifies that it must be at least X pages long (X being equal to approximately 6 slides), with a title slide, one slide about habitat, one slide about food, one slide about reproduction, one slide about geographic distribution, and one slide with a bibliography. So the kids go to Google, and find the answers. They then cut and paste whole sections of their reference work, usually without even reading them, except to make sure they contain the required information. It doesn't matter if they have no clue what the article says, that they don't understand many of the words they have just copied.
That said, I am VERY glad that these women emphasized that there is a GREAT deal of preparation work, "front-loading" that needs to be done BEFORE the students even begin their presentations. Personally, I would have liked to see them step us through the entire process. Choose a middle grade level and outline the steps from beginning to end product.
The presentations they showed were good examples of the final products, but I would like also to have heard a bit more about why a particular tool might be best for a particular type of presentation. Personally, I think Prezi's are more flash than substance, but straight PowerPoints can get repetitive and boring. What are some other products and why might one choose one over another. They gave us two web sites that list a number of tools, but no guidance in why one might choose a particular tool.
This was one (of several) presentations that simply needed more time.
The second presentation I attended was the keynote panel of gifted students, moderated by Jim Delisle. I have seen Dr. Delisle on numerous occasions now and I never get tired of hearing his insights (though I must admit that I didn't really listen as intently to the leaf poem the third time he used it). The problem I have with his presentations is that I usually end up wiping tears from my eyes far too often. Even the panel of students had that effect. What the students had to say wasn't particularly new to me, but it is worthwhile to hear them say it.
And, to prove that I still hadn't gotten enough of Dr. Delisle, I also attended his next session, entitled "Can't You Just Chill Out?: Appreciating the Intensities of Gifted Individuals" This was basically a talk about Dabrowski's OverExcitabilities. I am not terribly fond of that term. I actually prefer "Intensities". This was familiar ground for me, but I ALWAYS appreciate the stories about the kids that highlight what he is talking about. Since this conference was basically just for me, I felt free to apply all of these insights to myself. In particular, the Emotional Intensity seems to be dominating my thoughts lately and causing me a deal of pain. But it is hard for the patient to treat herself.
The next session was Susan Jackson again. I find her presentations interesting and with some great insights, but I am left afterwards feeling a bit confused as to what I can take away from her talk. As with Jim's stories, I LOVE the talk about real kids and real approaches to them and their difficulties. But sometimes, I had a hard time telling how she got to that particular point with that particular kid and what the next steps might be. I don't think I could tell you what more than a very few of her 27 points were. She is undeniably brilliant, but some of us lesser mortals have a hard time making the connections that seem so obvious to her.
The final breakout session I attended was Ed Zaccaro's. He has written a number of books to use for teaching kids mathematics. I have long loved his books and I wasn't disappointed in his lecture. I don't agree with him exactly on his views on acceleration - he thinks there are problems for underage kids, especially in when they get to high school. I agree that keeping kids with other approximately their own age and ability would be better, but this is just not happening in schools nowadays. Yes, I would prefer to have all the highly mathematically gifted fourth graders working together in fourth grade. But I just don't see it happening. At least with acceleration, you are sure SOMETHING is happening. I even agree that it isn't always the right things that are happening - greater depth or complexity. I am just frustrated that most teachers and schools don't do those things. At any rate, I enjoyed his talk. It is another one I wish had had much more time.
It was a worthwhile two days for me. I still feel alone and frustrated by my own failures, but at least I understand them better. Ha.
So, for the second day, I started with a presentation by Lindsey Reinert and Penelope Heinigk titled "Going Deeper with Technology". They specifically addressed one of the major concerns I have had about the way technology is typically used by classroom teachers in the elementary schools. The topic is assigned and kids are told to use a given technology, usually PowerPoint or Prezi to make a presentation on their topic. Sometimes, to help the kids along, the teachers give out requirements for the presentation. Example: at some time or another in their schooling, kids will be assigned the "do a slide show about your favorite animal" topic. The teacher specifies that it must be at least X pages long (X being equal to approximately 6 slides), with a title slide, one slide about habitat, one slide about food, one slide about reproduction, one slide about geographic distribution, and one slide with a bibliography. So the kids go to Google, and find the answers. They then cut and paste whole sections of their reference work, usually without even reading them, except to make sure they contain the required information. It doesn't matter if they have no clue what the article says, that they don't understand many of the words they have just copied.
That said, I am VERY glad that these women emphasized that there is a GREAT deal of preparation work, "front-loading" that needs to be done BEFORE the students even begin their presentations. Personally, I would have liked to see them step us through the entire process. Choose a middle grade level and outline the steps from beginning to end product.
The presentations they showed were good examples of the final products, but I would like also to have heard a bit more about why a particular tool might be best for a particular type of presentation. Personally, I think Prezi's are more flash than substance, but straight PowerPoints can get repetitive and boring. What are some other products and why might one choose one over another. They gave us two web sites that list a number of tools, but no guidance in why one might choose a particular tool.
This was one (of several) presentations that simply needed more time.
The second presentation I attended was the keynote panel of gifted students, moderated by Jim Delisle. I have seen Dr. Delisle on numerous occasions now and I never get tired of hearing his insights (though I must admit that I didn't really listen as intently to the leaf poem the third time he used it). The problem I have with his presentations is that I usually end up wiping tears from my eyes far too often. Even the panel of students had that effect. What the students had to say wasn't particularly new to me, but it is worthwhile to hear them say it.
And, to prove that I still hadn't gotten enough of Dr. Delisle, I also attended his next session, entitled "Can't You Just Chill Out?: Appreciating the Intensities of Gifted Individuals" This was basically a talk about Dabrowski's OverExcitabilities. I am not terribly fond of that term. I actually prefer "Intensities". This was familiar ground for me, but I ALWAYS appreciate the stories about the kids that highlight what he is talking about. Since this conference was basically just for me, I felt free to apply all of these insights to myself. In particular, the Emotional Intensity seems to be dominating my thoughts lately and causing me a deal of pain. But it is hard for the patient to treat herself.
The next session was Susan Jackson again. I find her presentations interesting and with some great insights, but I am left afterwards feeling a bit confused as to what I can take away from her talk. As with Jim's stories, I LOVE the talk about real kids and real approaches to them and their difficulties. But sometimes, I had a hard time telling how she got to that particular point with that particular kid and what the next steps might be. I don't think I could tell you what more than a very few of her 27 points were. She is undeniably brilliant, but some of us lesser mortals have a hard time making the connections that seem so obvious to her.
The final breakout session I attended was Ed Zaccaro's. He has written a number of books to use for teaching kids mathematics. I have long loved his books and I wasn't disappointed in his lecture. I don't agree with him exactly on his views on acceleration - he thinks there are problems for underage kids, especially in when they get to high school. I agree that keeping kids with other approximately their own age and ability would be better, but this is just not happening in schools nowadays. Yes, I would prefer to have all the highly mathematically gifted fourth graders working together in fourth grade. But I just don't see it happening. At least with acceleration, you are sure SOMETHING is happening. I even agree that it isn't always the right things that are happening - greater depth or complexity. I am just frustrated that most teachers and schools don't do those things. At any rate, I enjoyed his talk. It is another one I wish had had much more time.
It was a worthwhile two days for me. I still feel alone and frustrated by my own failures, but at least I understand them better. Ha.
Further Thoughts about Yesterday's Post
I said yesterday that, "I would describe our job as educators to be to take the raw giftedness
and gradually turn it into talent. And there are a huge number of areas
in which talent can be developed. My goal would not be eminence, but
rather self-actualization." Although I still mean that, I agree with Delisle, Silverman, and Betts that understanding the social, emotional, and intellectual being of the gifted individual is the most important orientation for teachers. The goal is, again, self-actualization. Not fame, not fortune - those are limited to the few, the connected, and the lucky. But a self, developed and developing in areas of growth and mastery.
Monday, October 07, 2013
Colorado Association for Gifted and Talented - CAGT 2013
I am attending the CAGT conference at the Denver Tech Center's Marriott Hotel. It is a two-day conference, with the first day (now over for me) today and the second day tomorrow.
Small personal victory: I took the bus to the Tech Center, instead of driving, and it was fine. Easy and on time.
Reflections:
The first session I went to was Jim Delisle's presentation on Underachievement. He breaks down underachievers into two categories - the true underachievers and the "selective consumers". The typical example of the selective consumer is the boy who gets into trouble and is disruptive, unless he is in a class he really likes or has a teacher who "gets" him. The typical example of the underachiever is the quiet girl, who does everything fairly well, but is devastated by any negative feedback - she credits her successes to luck and her failures to inability (stupidity). Most people focus on the disruptive kid, because, as a teacher, you have to - or the whole class spirals out of control. The quiet kid is the one who concerned me more - probably because that was me. I just kind of slid by in all of my classes up until college. I was such a good kid and so smart that no one worried about me. I did what I was told and did it well, so no one ever knew that I felt like a failure. I think Jim was a bit surprised at what I recommended for helping the quiet underachiever - the chance to really fail. But I still think it would help. I needed to fail at work that required real effort. I needed to know that I could survive failure on something really difficult and I needed to learn 1) that is isn't the end of the world, 2) that I could try again, and 3) learning is sometimes really hard.
The second presentation I heard was Susan Jackson's first keynote. Because of the federal government's shutdown, Deb Delisle, who was scheduled to speak, wasn't allowed to come. So Susan Jackson filled in. It was an interesting presentation. The major focus of it was on the necessity of play in our lives and most especially in the lives of children. Sadly, I see this all of the time in schools. Time is so structured that children never have time to just play with stuff or with each other. Even when they can play games, the games are almost always limited to games with a hidden objective - math games, spelling games, etc. Free play and the beautiful manipulatives languish on the shelves (see blog from two days ago). Even recess times are cut woefully short. Recess AND lunch for the kids are 30 minutes. If they are lucky, the kids will get another 15 minute recess. Most are not lucky.
The next presentation I attended was Linda Silverman's talk on Giftedness though the Lifetime. I have heard much of this talk from her before, but this time a good deal of the emphasis was on the plea for us to understand that giftedness is something you are - the way you see the world. This is in direct contrast to the recent emphasis in NAGC on talent development. While I agree with Dr. Silverman that giftedness is something you are - intrinsic to your whole being, I think too much is made of the supposed abandonment of that view to the talent development model. I have long thought that the best model of giftedness and talent is the Gagné model, where giftedness is the left-hand side (of the usual visual representation). This is the giftedness that Linda Silverman talks about. In Gagné's model, the other side of the visual is the talent side. I would describe our job as educators to be to take the raw giftedness and gradually turn it into talent. And there are a huge number of areas in which talent can be developed. My goal would not be eminence, but rather self-actualization. The people who achieve eminence need not just giftedness, but culturally-related education and luck. E.g., in a culture that does not value the arts, even the most gifted artist may never turn into a talented artist. And, in a culture that does not allow for education of women, even the most gifted female mathematician will never develop her talent. In a culture dependent on inherited connections to wealth and power, the gifted poor child can never become eminent.
Jim Delisle also gave a keynote presentation titled Learning to Exhale. I agree with him wholeheartedly on this. When I first attended full time gifted classes as a 6th grader a million years ago, it seemed to me that my whole mind was waking up from a long dull stupor. I get along well with a huge variety of people and, as a sub, I connect with a huge range of children and adults. But I come fully alive and cherish the time I spend with other gifted people. It is truly my lifeline. It is sad to me that more gifted kids don't have this opportunity. I am a swimmer. Being with other gifted people is like coming up for air. I need that breath of air to keep me going through the rest of the stroke. Gifted kids don't just WANT peers, the NEED them, with their whole beings.
The final presentation I went to was Mary Ellen Sweeney and Brooke Walker's discussion of Ethnographic Research. I have long been interested in other cultures and chose this presentation to see how others approach the topic. I found some useful ideas here - especially the graphic organizer about the various aspects of culture. I wish they had started their presentation with a preface, though. I would like to have known that they had written a book about this process and that the book was aimed for middle-school and high-school teachers. I gradually found that out as the presentation progressed, but it was unnecessarily confusing at first. And, rather than the process of doing the unit, I would like to have heard some specific case examples, e.g., one student who was taking notes on his soccer team came up with these artifacts ..., these customs ..., and these rituals ... I did like that we got to talk to other attendees for a short time. I had a good person to talk to.
All in all, a worthwhile day.
Small personal victory: I took the bus to the Tech Center, instead of driving, and it was fine. Easy and on time.
Reflections:
The first session I went to was Jim Delisle's presentation on Underachievement. He breaks down underachievers into two categories - the true underachievers and the "selective consumers". The typical example of the selective consumer is the boy who gets into trouble and is disruptive, unless he is in a class he really likes or has a teacher who "gets" him. The typical example of the underachiever is the quiet girl, who does everything fairly well, but is devastated by any negative feedback - she credits her successes to luck and her failures to inability (stupidity). Most people focus on the disruptive kid, because, as a teacher, you have to - or the whole class spirals out of control. The quiet kid is the one who concerned me more - probably because that was me. I just kind of slid by in all of my classes up until college. I was such a good kid and so smart that no one worried about me. I did what I was told and did it well, so no one ever knew that I felt like a failure. I think Jim was a bit surprised at what I recommended for helping the quiet underachiever - the chance to really fail. But I still think it would help. I needed to fail at work that required real effort. I needed to know that I could survive failure on something really difficult and I needed to learn 1) that is isn't the end of the world, 2) that I could try again, and 3) learning is sometimes really hard.
The second presentation I heard was Susan Jackson's first keynote. Because of the federal government's shutdown, Deb Delisle, who was scheduled to speak, wasn't allowed to come. So Susan Jackson filled in. It was an interesting presentation. The major focus of it was on the necessity of play in our lives and most especially in the lives of children. Sadly, I see this all of the time in schools. Time is so structured that children never have time to just play with stuff or with each other. Even when they can play games, the games are almost always limited to games with a hidden objective - math games, spelling games, etc. Free play and the beautiful manipulatives languish on the shelves (see blog from two days ago). Even recess times are cut woefully short. Recess AND lunch for the kids are 30 minutes. If they are lucky, the kids will get another 15 minute recess. Most are not lucky.
The next presentation I attended was Linda Silverman's talk on Giftedness though the Lifetime. I have heard much of this talk from her before, but this time a good deal of the emphasis was on the plea for us to understand that giftedness is something you are - the way you see the world. This is in direct contrast to the recent emphasis in NAGC on talent development. While I agree with Dr. Silverman that giftedness is something you are - intrinsic to your whole being, I think too much is made of the supposed abandonment of that view to the talent development model. I have long thought that the best model of giftedness and talent is the Gagné model, where giftedness is the left-hand side (of the usual visual representation). This is the giftedness that Linda Silverman talks about. In Gagné's model, the other side of the visual is the talent side. I would describe our job as educators to be to take the raw giftedness and gradually turn it into talent. And there are a huge number of areas in which talent can be developed. My goal would not be eminence, but rather self-actualization. The people who achieve eminence need not just giftedness, but culturally-related education and luck. E.g., in a culture that does not value the arts, even the most gifted artist may never turn into a talented artist. And, in a culture that does not allow for education of women, even the most gifted female mathematician will never develop her talent. In a culture dependent on inherited connections to wealth and power, the gifted poor child can never become eminent.
Jim Delisle also gave a keynote presentation titled Learning to Exhale. I agree with him wholeheartedly on this. When I first attended full time gifted classes as a 6th grader a million years ago, it seemed to me that my whole mind was waking up from a long dull stupor. I get along well with a huge variety of people and, as a sub, I connect with a huge range of children and adults. But I come fully alive and cherish the time I spend with other gifted people. It is truly my lifeline. It is sad to me that more gifted kids don't have this opportunity. I am a swimmer. Being with other gifted people is like coming up for air. I need that breath of air to keep me going through the rest of the stroke. Gifted kids don't just WANT peers, the NEED them, with their whole beings.
The final presentation I went to was Mary Ellen Sweeney and Brooke Walker's discussion of Ethnographic Research. I have long been interested in other cultures and chose this presentation to see how others approach the topic. I found some useful ideas here - especially the graphic organizer about the various aspects of culture. I wish they had started their presentation with a preface, though. I would like to have known that they had written a book about this process and that the book was aimed for middle-school and high-school teachers. I gradually found that out as the presentation progressed, but it was unnecessarily confusing at first. And, rather than the process of doing the unit, I would like to have heard some specific case examples, e.g., one student who was taking notes on his soccer team came up with these artifacts ..., these customs ..., and these rituals ... I did like that we got to talk to other attendees for a short time. I had a good person to talk to.
All in all, a worthwhile day.
Tuesday, September 17, 2013
Re: Things We Should Stop Doing to High-Ability Students
Original article by Tamar Wyschogrod
http://smokingtowardnewjersey.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/five-things-we-should-stop-doing-to.html?spref=tw
I have a couple of minor complaints about this article and some major comments.
First of all, a minor complaint: in the second paragraph, I think high-ability is equated with high-achieving. They are IMNSHO different things. I don't object to the use of high-ability to equate to "gifted", but high-ability does not necessarily translate to high-achieving. And high-achieving does not necessarily translate to high-ability. That last statement needs to be explained a bit more. While it does take a certain amount of ability in order to achieve highly, in most of the things required for school, a modest amount of ability combined with hard work and support from parents, teachers, or peers is sufficient to result in high-achievement, or at least noticeably above average achievement.
Secondly, crappy differentiation is crappy, because it is difficult, takes time, and is politically a hard sell with kids. I have written quite a few times about the problems with touting differentiation as the solution for high-ability students. Check the tag if you are interested, but basically, it simply isn't enough for HG+ students, teachers can't do it (conceptually difficult), and teachers don't do it (not enough time).
I haven't ever addressed specifically the last point of the above paragraph's opening statement: differentiation is politically a hard sell with kids. There are a few kids, for whom getting something different is such a relief that they don't care how their classmates view it. There are also a few kids who take getting something different to mean that they are somehow better than their classmates. But, IME, a lot of the students react to getting something different with either embarrassment or reluctance. They might be embarrassed because they are afraid that their classmates will take the view that they are "stuck up" or they might be embarrassed that they are singled out - "out"ed, as a smart kid, when they were just trying to "pass". And, there are a lot of high-ability kids who look at differentiation as just more work for them to do (as the author points out). Given a list of options for projects, they choose the easy ones, even though they aren't very challenging, because they are less work. Not all high-ability kids WANT higher challenge work.
Now for the rest of the article.
Group Projects. Yes, in general, these are the bane of the high-ability students. This comes largely from the teacher-training recommendations for group constitutions - one high-ability student, two average students, one low ability student. High-ability student can sometimes cajole one average student into helping, but oftentimes ends up doing most of the work. What does the low ability student learn? That s/he is too dumb to help and it is best to just clown around so that the others don't notice. One teacher inservice that I attended said that group projects aren't themselves the problem. It is the make-up of the groups. She recommended never including high-ability students with low-ability students. Her recommendation: groups of four should have similar abilities, e.g., one or two high ability students and 2 or 3 moderate ability students. That way, the lower ability groups can't get away with doing little or nothing, and the teacher might be able to adjust the project so that they, too, learn something (differentiation).
Crappy Differentiation. Already discussed.
Contests instead of Curriculum. I like contests. They can be interesting and motivating for gifted kids. But I agree that they are no substitute for curriculum. But just regular classroom differentiated curriculum isn't good enough. It isn't challenging enough, it isn't (usually) at the correct level, and it isn't consistent enough. High-ability kids need real and regular work. It isn't fair to make the average kids work hard at learning and let the high-ability kids coast. They don't learn good work habits. They don't learn how to react to difficulties. They don't learn how to learn. That is why I am actually opposed to gifted advocates insisting on touting differentiation. It isn't working. High-ability kids need classes designed for their abilities. The easiest way to do this is by structural changes - subject acceleration, whole grade acceleration, grouping across multiple classes, and possibly cluster-grouping. I am still uncertain about cluster-grouping, because, as a sub, I have yet to see it in action.
Ignoring Their Achievements
This isn't a biggie with me. I think schools are doing better at touting achievements of high-ability kids. Yes, in some cases, it still feels like tokenism, but this is one area where I think schools have been reasonably responsive.
Low Standards
It seems like, in many classrooms, there is a race to the bottom. We don't want the low-ability kids to feel bad, so we teach lessons where all kids can achieve. We don't require good spelling in science class, because there are kids who simply can't spell well (true, even for high-ability kids). We don't check social studies tests for correct grammar, because it is a chore to even get them to write in complete sentences, let alone write a paragraph that is longer than two sentences. We make tests so that everyone who learns the material can get an A. (relevant discussion on LinkedIn Math Education). And most importantly, we don't give teachers enough time to hold kids to higher standards. You can't teach kids to write well, if, every time you ask them to write, you have to spend hours and hours of your own personal time - not planning time - grading those papers. 30 students X 3 minutes per paper ==> 1 1/2 hours of grading for one paper in one subject. That is the ENTIRE planning time for 3 days.
Thanks for some interesting food for thought to Tamar Wyschogrod.
http://smokingtowardnewjersey.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/five-things-we-should-stop-doing-to.html?spref=tw
I have a couple of minor complaints about this article and some major comments.
First of all, a minor complaint: in the second paragraph, I think high-ability is equated with high-achieving. They are IMNSHO different things. I don't object to the use of high-ability to equate to "gifted", but high-ability does not necessarily translate to high-achieving. And high-achieving does not necessarily translate to high-ability. That last statement needs to be explained a bit more. While it does take a certain amount of ability in order to achieve highly, in most of the things required for school, a modest amount of ability combined with hard work and support from parents, teachers, or peers is sufficient to result in high-achievement, or at least noticeably above average achievement.
Secondly, crappy differentiation is crappy, because it is difficult, takes time, and is politically a hard sell with kids. I have written quite a few times about the problems with touting differentiation as the solution for high-ability students. Check the tag if you are interested, but basically, it simply isn't enough for HG+ students, teachers can't do it (conceptually difficult), and teachers don't do it (not enough time).
I haven't ever addressed specifically the last point of the above paragraph's opening statement: differentiation is politically a hard sell with kids. There are a few kids, for whom getting something different is such a relief that they don't care how their classmates view it. There are also a few kids who take getting something different to mean that they are somehow better than their classmates. But, IME, a lot of the students react to getting something different with either embarrassment or reluctance. They might be embarrassed because they are afraid that their classmates will take the view that they are "stuck up" or they might be embarrassed that they are singled out - "out"ed, as a smart kid, when they were just trying to "pass". And, there are a lot of high-ability kids who look at differentiation as just more work for them to do (as the author points out). Given a list of options for projects, they choose the easy ones, even though they aren't very challenging, because they are less work. Not all high-ability kids WANT higher challenge work.
Now for the rest of the article.
Group Projects. Yes, in general, these are the bane of the high-ability students. This comes largely from the teacher-training recommendations for group constitutions - one high-ability student, two average students, one low ability student. High-ability student can sometimes cajole one average student into helping, but oftentimes ends up doing most of the work. What does the low ability student learn? That s/he is too dumb to help and it is best to just clown around so that the others don't notice. One teacher inservice that I attended said that group projects aren't themselves the problem. It is the make-up of the groups. She recommended never including high-ability students with low-ability students. Her recommendation: groups of four should have similar abilities, e.g., one or two high ability students and 2 or 3 moderate ability students. That way, the lower ability groups can't get away with doing little or nothing, and the teacher might be able to adjust the project so that they, too, learn something (differentiation).
Crappy Differentiation. Already discussed.
Contests instead of Curriculum. I like contests. They can be interesting and motivating for gifted kids. But I agree that they are no substitute for curriculum. But just regular classroom differentiated curriculum isn't good enough. It isn't challenging enough, it isn't (usually) at the correct level, and it isn't consistent enough. High-ability kids need real and regular work. It isn't fair to make the average kids work hard at learning and let the high-ability kids coast. They don't learn good work habits. They don't learn how to react to difficulties. They don't learn how to learn. That is why I am actually opposed to gifted advocates insisting on touting differentiation. It isn't working. High-ability kids need classes designed for their abilities. The easiest way to do this is by structural changes - subject acceleration, whole grade acceleration, grouping across multiple classes, and possibly cluster-grouping. I am still uncertain about cluster-grouping, because, as a sub, I have yet to see it in action.
Ignoring Their Achievements
This isn't a biggie with me. I think schools are doing better at touting achievements of high-ability kids. Yes, in some cases, it still feels like tokenism, but this is one area where I think schools have been reasonably responsive.
Low Standards
It seems like, in many classrooms, there is a race to the bottom. We don't want the low-ability kids to feel bad, so we teach lessons where all kids can achieve. We don't require good spelling in science class, because there are kids who simply can't spell well (true, even for high-ability kids). We don't check social studies tests for correct grammar, because it is a chore to even get them to write in complete sentences, let alone write a paragraph that is longer than two sentences. We make tests so that everyone who learns the material can get an A. (relevant discussion on LinkedIn Math Education). And most importantly, we don't give teachers enough time to hold kids to higher standards. You can't teach kids to write well, if, every time you ask them to write, you have to spend hours and hours of your own personal time - not planning time - grading those papers. 30 students X 3 minutes per paper ==> 1 1/2 hours of grading for one paper in one subject. That is the ENTIRE planning time for 3 days.
Thanks for some interesting food for thought to Tamar Wyschogrod.
Wednesday, August 07, 2013
Re: Before Reading or Watching Videos, Students Should Experiment First by David Plotnikoff
Thoughts about this article:
http://blogs.kqed.org/mindshift/2013/07/before-reading-or-watching-videos-students-should-first-experiment/
General conclusion: it is more effective for students to experiment BEFORE learning about something through text or video than doing the same lessons in the opposite sequence (text or video first, then experimentation).
My thoughts:
I think this is true for a lot of science. When I was a kid (100+ years ago), kids had lots of active experience with science - collecting rocks, growing vegetables, building dams in the creek, using a teeter-totter. When they came to school, the science lesson used practical experience to build the theory on. Nowadays, kids have lots of virtual and digital experience, but much less hands-on experience - many have never hammered nails or fixed a bicycle or made cakes from scratch. So the theoretical lessons often aren't rooted in personal knowledge.
In school, many teachers have found that manipulatives are difficult to manage with large classes, so those lessons have disappeared - at least it appears so to me. I am a sub and I often find unopened manipulatives and shrink-wrapped science kits in teachers' classrooms at the end of the school year.
Many years ago, I was tasked to teach gifted classes, with no specific curriculum and few materials. I did have a hot plate and some beakers, though, so I decided to teach a Kitchen Physics-like set of lessons - with sugar cubes, food dye, water, and the beakers and hot plate (and a thermometer). The kids were skeptical at first. They wanted me to tell them what to do. So, I started with a simple experiment on how long it would take the sugar cube to dissolve in the water. And I asked them what else they needed to know. I helped them frame a group experiment in a scientific way. Hypothesis, test, explain, discuss what is still unclear. The first few times through the cycle, they didn't even know how to ask questions, but soon they caught on and were completely surprised at how interesting the simple system could be.
Kids enjoy the hands-on lessons, but I fully agree with teachers that they are harder to manage with ever increasing class sizes and substantially less time that can be devoted to science.
http://blogs.kqed.org/mindshift/2013/07/before-reading-or-watching-videos-students-should-first-experiment/
General conclusion: it is more effective for students to experiment BEFORE learning about something through text or video than doing the same lessons in the opposite sequence (text or video first, then experimentation).
My thoughts:
I think this is true for a lot of science. When I was a kid (100+ years ago), kids had lots of active experience with science - collecting rocks, growing vegetables, building dams in the creek, using a teeter-totter. When they came to school, the science lesson used practical experience to build the theory on. Nowadays, kids have lots of virtual and digital experience, but much less hands-on experience - many have never hammered nails or fixed a bicycle or made cakes from scratch. So the theoretical lessons often aren't rooted in personal knowledge.
In school, many teachers have found that manipulatives are difficult to manage with large classes, so those lessons have disappeared - at least it appears so to me. I am a sub and I often find unopened manipulatives and shrink-wrapped science kits in teachers' classrooms at the end of the school year.
Many years ago, I was tasked to teach gifted classes, with no specific curriculum and few materials. I did have a hot plate and some beakers, though, so I decided to teach a Kitchen Physics-like set of lessons - with sugar cubes, food dye, water, and the beakers and hot plate (and a thermometer). The kids were skeptical at first. They wanted me to tell them what to do. So, I started with a simple experiment on how long it would take the sugar cube to dissolve in the water. And I asked them what else they needed to know. I helped them frame a group experiment in a scientific way. Hypothesis, test, explain, discuss what is still unclear. The first few times through the cycle, they didn't even know how to ask questions, but soon they caught on and were completely surprised at how interesting the simple system could be.
Kids enjoy the hands-on lessons, but I fully agree with teachers that they are harder to manage with ever increasing class sizes and substantially less time that can be devoted to science.
Saturday, April 20, 2013
Why Do Some Capture Us?
As a substitute teacher, I see WAY too many kids in a week to remember them all. In fact, if I am in a particular class for only a day or a half day, I often have trouble REALLY noticing quite a few of the students. This is especially true of the quiet ones, the ones who seem to become part of their chairs.
One of my ongoing questions of myself is why do I notice some students and remember them and why do others completely fade from my mind? If I come back to that same classroom weeks or months later, which kids will I remember and which ones will I have no idea about who they are or what they are like?
As one might suspect, the naughty ones are memorable. And the class clowns. The kids with special needs that make themselves known to the sub. Those are easy reasons to remember particular students and they are all reasons why I remember some students. But that isn't the entire cast of the ones I remember. I am thinking back over the class I had just yesterday and trying to think of which kids I still can bring up faces or names for. Interestingly, many of the kids do not fit any of those categories.
Kids who speak to me personally are more memorable - even if it was just to ask to go to the nurse. Kids who help me with some piece of equipment or some unique classroom procedure are also memorable. Kids who display some part of their character are also memorable. Sometimes even the especially quiet students are memorable.
But, there is one category of kid that I remember especially well. It is the kids who ask memorable questions. And, yes, for me, the obviously gifted kids. Weeks ago, I wrote about one young man I interacted with and felt especially drawn to. During the literacy block, when the rest of the class was busy, this young man had told me all about a book he was working on - about American heroes. For some reason, he and I really connected. I was sorry when the day ended that I probably would not teach him again. He is in a grade that I normally do not sub for, but I like his school, so I had taken the job for that class.
I was wrong that I would not teach him again. I was in the grade one higher than his at that school a couple of days ago and he came into the math class that I was teaching. This confirmed my assessment of his probable giftedness - kids are rarely accelerated into a math class higher than their own grade, unless they REALLY need it. And, wonder of wonders, he was also delighted to see me - in a very quiet way. He is not a loud, assertive kid. But he did come up during a transition time and ask me if I remembered him. I did. Again, that mysterious and wonderful connection. But too short.
If I could teach kids like him every day, I would do it for free. They are that intriguing to me.
One of my ongoing questions of myself is why do I notice some students and remember them and why do others completely fade from my mind? If I come back to that same classroom weeks or months later, which kids will I remember and which ones will I have no idea about who they are or what they are like?
As one might suspect, the naughty ones are memorable. And the class clowns. The kids with special needs that make themselves known to the sub. Those are easy reasons to remember particular students and they are all reasons why I remember some students. But that isn't the entire cast of the ones I remember. I am thinking back over the class I had just yesterday and trying to think of which kids I still can bring up faces or names for. Interestingly, many of the kids do not fit any of those categories.
Kids who speak to me personally are more memorable - even if it was just to ask to go to the nurse. Kids who help me with some piece of equipment or some unique classroom procedure are also memorable. Kids who display some part of their character are also memorable. Sometimes even the especially quiet students are memorable.
But, there is one category of kid that I remember especially well. It is the kids who ask memorable questions. And, yes, for me, the obviously gifted kids. Weeks ago, I wrote about one young man I interacted with and felt especially drawn to. During the literacy block, when the rest of the class was busy, this young man had told me all about a book he was working on - about American heroes. For some reason, he and I really connected. I was sorry when the day ended that I probably would not teach him again. He is in a grade that I normally do not sub for, but I like his school, so I had taken the job for that class.
I was wrong that I would not teach him again. I was in the grade one higher than his at that school a couple of days ago and he came into the math class that I was teaching. This confirmed my assessment of his probable giftedness - kids are rarely accelerated into a math class higher than their own grade, unless they REALLY need it. And, wonder of wonders, he was also delighted to see me - in a very quiet way. He is not a loud, assertive kid. But he did come up during a transition time and ask me if I remembered him. I did. Again, that mysterious and wonderful connection. But too short.
If I could teach kids like him every day, I would do it for free. They are that intriguing to me.
Sunday, February 17, 2013
They Identify Themselves
I have just finished reading the NY Times article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/18/nyregion/new-york-city-schools-struggle-to-separate-the-gifted-from-the-just-well-prepared.html/
and I am thinking about a recent subbing experience. I was teaching 4th graders and had the students for 5 different small groups. There were anywhere from 4 to 6 kids in each group. Since I was a sub and not the regular teacher, the teacher had left the same assignment for each group. Most of the groups needed a similar amount of support - help with vocabulary, connection of pictures to text, connection of text to knowledge, etc. And all of the groups seemed to be quite interested in the topic - the volcanic origin of the Hawaiian Islands.
But, there was one group that stood out from all of the rest. They made connections to more other concepts, they had greater background knowledge, they asked more interesting questions. They were intrigued by the pronunciation of Hawaii words. And so on. One young gentleman in particular, the class clown and the one who would certainly be voted "Most Likely to Interrupt the Teacher's Lesson with Some Hilarious Non Sequitur", stood out. One young lady with sparkling eyes and insightful questions. And one I had deemed unlikely in the large group, but who came alive in the small group.
As someone who has nominated, tested, and taught (and raised) gifted children, I am thinking more and more that we could probably just bag the tests and do AnneMarie Roeper style interviews with groups of 4 or 5 students. The gifted kids would identify themselves. I love having test results - they are intriguing to me. But I am not sure they are necessary.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/18/nyregion/new-york-city-schools-struggle-to-separate-the-gifted-from-the-just-well-prepared.html/
and I am thinking about a recent subbing experience. I was teaching 4th graders and had the students for 5 different small groups. There were anywhere from 4 to 6 kids in each group. Since I was a sub and not the regular teacher, the teacher had left the same assignment for each group. Most of the groups needed a similar amount of support - help with vocabulary, connection of pictures to text, connection of text to knowledge, etc. And all of the groups seemed to be quite interested in the topic - the volcanic origin of the Hawaiian Islands.
But, there was one group that stood out from all of the rest. They made connections to more other concepts, they had greater background knowledge, they asked more interesting questions. They were intrigued by the pronunciation of Hawaii words. And so on. One young gentleman in particular, the class clown and the one who would certainly be voted "Most Likely to Interrupt the Teacher's Lesson with Some Hilarious Non Sequitur", stood out. One young lady with sparkling eyes and insightful questions. And one I had deemed unlikely in the large group, but who came alive in the small group.
As someone who has nominated, tested, and taught (and raised) gifted children, I am thinking more and more that we could probably just bag the tests and do AnneMarie Roeper style interviews with groups of 4 or 5 students. The gifted kids would identify themselves. I love having test results - they are intriguing to me. But I am not sure they are necessary.
Sunday, January 20, 2013
This post is a response to SH's post Black Paper
This post is a response to SH's post Black Paper, found at:
http://chockyschild.wordpress.com/2013/01/19/black-paper/
Key points:
1. I agree and I think we have lost sight of the fact that the word discipline means teaching - teaching the child the ways of society that make it function well. We can't just go around doing exactly what each of us would like to do, because it infringes on the rights of others.
2. Competition can increase both motivation and effort. Too much competition can be unhealthy, but so can too little.
3. Yes, we need quality teachers, but I think we also need a lot of them. Part of the reason teacher quality has declined is that other occupations have opened up immensely for talented women. Less competent teachers have had to fill the void. But schools, in the US and I suspect worldwide, have also tried to economize on teachers. They have purposely hired less competent, less experienced teachers, because these teachers cost less.
I am also disturbed at the increasing class sizes I see as a substitute teacher in the last year or two. Part of teaching is getting to know the students and developing solid relationships with them. This is more difficult as the class sizes get larger. To me, this is self-evident, but it is based on the following observation: when I sub for classes of 24 or fewer students, I can manage to learn the names of each of the students in the class. I even have time to learn a bit about most of them. As class sizes increase over 24 students, I find this increasingly not even worth attempting. And, learning a student's name is the first step to getting to know them.
I tend to see equipment in a moderate way. You can do a lot with simple equipment - probably much more than most people think. But some things are essential - stuff to write with and on; basic art supplies; things to read.
4. I think this is mostly semantics. Schooling IS social engineering.
5. Agreed. I think we fail in this respect to a large extent. I used to strongly support bilingual education, but lately I have seen results of it that I don't think benefit the bilingual students. I was subbing in a bilingual school where the students were to be taught in one language in the morning and in the other language in the afternoon. I am fluent in only one of the languages, but understand a fair amount of the other one. It seemed to me that the students who speak English at home benefited greatly from learning a second language at school. But the students who spoke Spanish at home were being cheated by this system. They only had to get through half of their school day in English. The rest of the time, at school and at home, they could speak Spanish. Consequently, their language skills, both reading and writing especially, were significantly below the level of the native English speakers. If they are to have the full range of options for high school and beyond, they need to be fluent in English as well as, in this case, Spanish. High school and college are almost universally taught in English in the US.
6. I am not an expert on reading. I expect this is true, but I have always HATED reading instruction, both as a student and as a teacher. Thus, my opinions on this are suspect.
7. This is one reason why I am a strong supporter of gifted education, especially in deprived areas. Gifted students with parents who have the economic means to support them have a reasonable chance of succeeding. Gifted students whose parents are struggling with basic necessities will have far fewer chances and need more support from the schools.
8. I have recently begun to wonder if we couldn't entirely restructure education into learning modules and allow students to progress through them at their own rates. There could be outside examinations for each module: Reading, Level A, Basic Phonics; Reading, Level A, Basic Text Comprehension, etc. One advantage of this is that now the students might perceive the teacher differently. Rather than being the obstacle to their advancement to the next level, the judge of their efforts, the punisher of wrong answers, the students might begin to see the teacher as the guide to passing the next task, the facilitator of learning that we all hope to be, but sometimes fear we are not. Unlike many teachers in the US, I actually LIKE standardized testing, but I think it is used incorrectly. It is not typically used to inform instruction, but rather to judge the student and the teacher. This is one reason why I like computerized adaptive testing. Students can progress through the test to the level of their abilities and the results are available immediately, so they can be used to inform instruction. "You have just passed Reading, Level G, Inferences from Pictures; you are ready for Reading, Level H, Inferences from Metaphors. "
9. Freedom of speech is vital, but is seldom practiced below university level.
10. Equality is impossible. Any parent of more than one child knows this. Any emergency room doctor knows this.
Thanks, SH, for food for thought.
http://chockyschild.wordpress.com/2013/01/19/black-paper/
Key points:
- Children are not naturally good. They need firm, tactful discipline from parents and teachers with clear standards. Too much freedom for children breeds selfishness, vandalism and personal unhappiness.
- If the non-competitive ethos of progressive education is allowed to dominate our schools, we shall produce a generation unable to maintain our standards of living when opposed by fierce rivalry from overseas competitors.
- It is the quality of teachers that matters, rather than their numbers or their equipment. We have sacrificed quality for numbers, and the result has been a lowering of standards. We need high-quality, higher-paid teachers in the classroom, not as counsellors or administrators.
- Schools are for schooling, not social engineering.
- The best way to help children in deprived areas is to teach them to be literate and numerate, and to develop all their potential abilities.
- Every normal child should be able to read by the age of seven. This can be achieved by the hard work of teachers who use a structured approach.
- Without selection the clever working-class child in a deprived area stands little chance of a real academic education.
- External examinations are essential for schools, colleges, polytechnics and universities. Without such checks, standards decline. Working-class children suffer when applying for jobs if they cannot bring forward proof of their worth achieved in authoritative examinations.
- Freedom of speech must be preserved in universities. Institutions which cannot maintain proper standards of open debate should be closed.
- You can have equality or equality of opportunity; you cannot have both. Equality will be the holding back (or the new deprivation) of the brighter children.
1. I agree and I think we have lost sight of the fact that the word discipline means teaching - teaching the child the ways of society that make it function well. We can't just go around doing exactly what each of us would like to do, because it infringes on the rights of others.
2. Competition can increase both motivation and effort. Too much competition can be unhealthy, but so can too little.
3. Yes, we need quality teachers, but I think we also need a lot of them. Part of the reason teacher quality has declined is that other occupations have opened up immensely for talented women. Less competent teachers have had to fill the void. But schools, in the US and I suspect worldwide, have also tried to economize on teachers. They have purposely hired less competent, less experienced teachers, because these teachers cost less.
I am also disturbed at the increasing class sizes I see as a substitute teacher in the last year or two. Part of teaching is getting to know the students and developing solid relationships with them. This is more difficult as the class sizes get larger. To me, this is self-evident, but it is based on the following observation: when I sub for classes of 24 or fewer students, I can manage to learn the names of each of the students in the class. I even have time to learn a bit about most of them. As class sizes increase over 24 students, I find this increasingly not even worth attempting. And, learning a student's name is the first step to getting to know them.
I tend to see equipment in a moderate way. You can do a lot with simple equipment - probably much more than most people think. But some things are essential - stuff to write with and on; basic art supplies; things to read.
4. I think this is mostly semantics. Schooling IS social engineering.
5. Agreed. I think we fail in this respect to a large extent. I used to strongly support bilingual education, but lately I have seen results of it that I don't think benefit the bilingual students. I was subbing in a bilingual school where the students were to be taught in one language in the morning and in the other language in the afternoon. I am fluent in only one of the languages, but understand a fair amount of the other one. It seemed to me that the students who speak English at home benefited greatly from learning a second language at school. But the students who spoke Spanish at home were being cheated by this system. They only had to get through half of their school day in English. The rest of the time, at school and at home, they could speak Spanish. Consequently, their language skills, both reading and writing especially, were significantly below the level of the native English speakers. If they are to have the full range of options for high school and beyond, they need to be fluent in English as well as, in this case, Spanish. High school and college are almost universally taught in English in the US.
6. I am not an expert on reading. I expect this is true, but I have always HATED reading instruction, both as a student and as a teacher. Thus, my opinions on this are suspect.
7. This is one reason why I am a strong supporter of gifted education, especially in deprived areas. Gifted students with parents who have the economic means to support them have a reasonable chance of succeeding. Gifted students whose parents are struggling with basic necessities will have far fewer chances and need more support from the schools.
8. I have recently begun to wonder if we couldn't entirely restructure education into learning modules and allow students to progress through them at their own rates. There could be outside examinations for each module: Reading, Level A, Basic Phonics; Reading, Level A, Basic Text Comprehension, etc. One advantage of this is that now the students might perceive the teacher differently. Rather than being the obstacle to their advancement to the next level, the judge of their efforts, the punisher of wrong answers, the students might begin to see the teacher as the guide to passing the next task, the facilitator of learning that we all hope to be, but sometimes fear we are not. Unlike many teachers in the US, I actually LIKE standardized testing, but I think it is used incorrectly. It is not typically used to inform instruction, but rather to judge the student and the teacher. This is one reason why I like computerized adaptive testing. Students can progress through the test to the level of their abilities and the results are available immediately, so they can be used to inform instruction. "You have just passed Reading, Level G, Inferences from Pictures; you are ready for Reading, Level H, Inferences from Metaphors. "
9. Freedom of speech is vital, but is seldom practiced below university level.
10. Equality is impossible. Any parent of more than one child knows this. Any emergency room doctor knows this.
Thanks, SH, for food for thought.
Sunday, December 02, 2012
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.
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.
Monday, November 26, 2012
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)