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_identification. Show all posts
Showing posts with label gifted_identification. Show all posts
Saturday, October 11, 2014
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.
Saturday, May 03, 2014
The Gifted Label, Part II
A friend of mine commented regarding the Gifted Label, saying that she doesn't like labeling people, but prefers to label needs.
I wrote this in response to her comment: I have been thinking about your comment and its implications. While it may semantically make a difference, I don't see that, in practice it makes much difference. "Children with learning disabilities" and "learning disabled children" seem remarkably similar to me. In addition, in the case of gifted children, labeling their needs is actually restrictive. Gifted children don't simply need extended curriculum, they need social and emotional support that isn't generally offered in any curricula.
In a way, I see it as analogous to the movement in the autistic community. At first, many people welcomed the designation of "person with autism", which emphasized the person first and the autism as a qualifier. But then a significant number of autistic people decided that their autism was so central to them as people that they would actually prefer to be labeled "autistic people". Their whole being needs to be interpreted through the lens of their autism.
Sure, gifted people have needs that can be labelled, but, for me, at least, there is a lot more to it than just the needs. It is acceptance of the whole person where the giftedness cannot be separated out from the whole. d
_____________
Further thoughts/comments:
For most services offered in schools, we do not label the service, but we DO label the child. He is ELL; she is LD. They are deaf; they are BD.
How could we label the needs of gifted children without labeling the child? "Children who need extended curriculum"? - true, but not the whole story. "Children who need emotional support for their advanced learning differences"? - also true, but the same type of problem that the word "gifted" has. Would it make a difference to label the service and not the child?
I wrote this in response to her comment: I have been thinking about your comment and its implications. While it may semantically make a difference, I don't see that, in practice it makes much difference. "Children with learning disabilities" and "learning disabled children" seem remarkably similar to me. In addition, in the case of gifted children, labeling their needs is actually restrictive. Gifted children don't simply need extended curriculum, they need social and emotional support that isn't generally offered in any curricula.
In a way, I see it as analogous to the movement in the autistic community. At first, many people welcomed the designation of "person with autism", which emphasized the person first and the autism as a qualifier. But then a significant number of autistic people decided that their autism was so central to them as people that they would actually prefer to be labeled "autistic people". Their whole being needs to be interpreted through the lens of their autism.
Sure, gifted people have needs that can be labelled, but, for me, at least, there is a lot more to it than just the needs. It is acceptance of the whole person where the giftedness cannot be separated out from the whole. d
_____________
Further thoughts/comments:
For most services offered in schools, we do not label the service, but we DO label the child. He is ELL; she is LD. They are deaf; they are BD.
How could we label the needs of gifted children without labeling the child? "Children who need extended curriculum"? - true, but not the whole story. "Children who need emotional support for their advanced learning differences"? - also true, but the same type of problem that the word "gifted" has. Would it make a difference to label the service and not the child?
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/
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.
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.
Tuesday, November 27, 2012
Good Day
Yesterday, I had a good day subbing. I can't say that for every day, but some days make it worth it. The class was respectful and, above all, NICE. It was an enjoyable day.
One of the highlights of my day was a young boy. As a sub, I have no way of knowing if this student is identified as gifted, but I could see it as if it were written in bold letters across his forehead. He was working on a project about American legends for his reading work. [And I might say, as an aside, that this might, in fact, be one of the very rare instances that I could actually see differentiation occurring for a gifted student in the classroom.] He had a list of American legends that he was making a booklet about. We talked briefly about the ones that he had listed. He told me they could be either real people or not real people and he had included several that were rather interesting, including one Native American legend. I made one additional suggestion, Sacajawea, and that was all the time we had. But it was good.
I had met his teacher when I first arrived there - she was going home sick - and she seemed very nice and competent. I am glad this young boy has such a good regular teacher.
One of the highlights of my day was a young boy. As a sub, I have no way of knowing if this student is identified as gifted, but I could see it as if it were written in bold letters across his forehead. He was working on a project about American legends for his reading work. [And I might say, as an aside, that this might, in fact, be one of the very rare instances that I could actually see differentiation occurring for a gifted student in the classroom.] He had a list of American legends that he was making a booklet about. We talked briefly about the ones that he had listed. He told me they could be either real people or not real people and he had included several that were rather interesting, including one Native American legend. I made one additional suggestion, Sacajawea, and that was all the time we had. But it was good.
I had met his teacher when I first arrived there - she was going home sick - and she seemed very nice and competent. I am glad this young boy has such a good regular teacher.
Wednesday, May 09, 2012
The Uses of Placement Tests, Part 2
There was also a 4th type of student - one who had stellar grades and modest, but borderline acceptable scores on the algebra readiness test. He was the model student: reasonably intelligent, very hard working, respectful, personable. We accepted him into the algebra class as well, even though his algebra readiness score was somewhat less than I was comfortable with. The other teacher defended his inclusion, saying that he was one of her best students and would be extremely disappointed if he weren't selected for the algebra class.
He did OK. It was clearly a struggle for him, but he was, indeed a hard worker, he had support at home, and he was willing to ask for help when he needed it. In his case, I think the class was OK for him. It was a bit above what was a comfortable learning curve for him, but he had learned some of the study skills and personal skills that I wish gifted kids would learn: persistence, asking for help when needed, organization.
And this makes me wonder, if gifted kids were closer to their zone of proximal development for a reasonable portion of their school day, would they learn better learning skills. With my own two children, it seemed to work. But that is a pretty small sample.
He did OK. It was clearly a struggle for him, but he was, indeed a hard worker, he had support at home, and he was willing to ask for help when he needed it. In his case, I think the class was OK for him. It was a bit above what was a comfortable learning curve for him, but he had learned some of the study skills and personal skills that I wish gifted kids would learn: persistence, asking for help when needed, organization.
And this makes me wonder, if gifted kids were closer to their zone of proximal development for a reasonable portion of their school day, would they learn better learning skills. With my own two children, it seemed to work. But that is a pretty small sample.
Tuesday, May 08, 2012
The Use of Placement Tests
I think I have written about this before, but I can't find the post and I want to think about it again, so here goes a reconstruction of the idea.
Years ago, I was teaching algebra to 8th graders who were recommended by their previous math teacher for inclusion in the algebra class. In general, the criteria she used for recommending students for the class were two-fold: they had to have good mathematical understanding (evidence: tests) and they had to have good work habits ("A"s in math, which, with her grading system meant that they turned in virtually all of their homework).
Since I was the one who actually did the teaching of the algebra class, I thought it might be interesting to add to these criteria an algebra readiness test. So we gave the algebra readiness test to quite a few more students than she anticipated were actually qualified to take algebra. Interestingly, we now had a new problem. There were the kids who had good grades and who scored high on the readiness test. Clearly, they were ready for algebra. There were kids who had good grades, but who scored fairly low on the readiness test. Not quite as clear, but still relatively convincingly, they were not quite ready for algebra. But the ones that really led to a disagreement between the two of us were the ones in a third group: the ones who scored high on the readiness test, but who did not have especially good grades. These students were often described as the unmotivated ones, the ones who were lazy, the ones who just weren't interested in math. She felt these students should not be included, because they hadn't earned the right to be in the algebra class.
Not right away, but after thinking about it for a while, I began to wonder: why do we give smart kids a pass on taking classes or learning material that they are clearly ready for? For kids on the lower end of the ability spectrum, or kids with specific learning disabilities, do we let them opt out of addressing their weaknesses? No. We may give them extra support to help them handle their challenges, but we don't let them say, No, I am not interested in reading, so I am not going to do this hard reading, I am just going to read this lower level stuff that I know I can do just fine.
Why DO we let the smart kids opt out of challenging material?
And then, to carry that a bit further, what if we re-framed gifted education in terms of not just letting kids advance to higher level material, but instead use a slightly different argument: all students need to learn to work hard and to develop good study skills. Therefore, we need to place all students in curricula that are in their zone of proximal development (ZPG). Naturally, this will be an approximation. Teachers with 25 or more students in their classes can't be expected to individualize the entire class for each student, but it should be at least a goal. Kids who are reading 2 or 3 grade levels above their class level should be required to work just as hard at new reading goals as kids who are reading 2 or 3 grade levels below their class level. Why shouldn't they? Why do we let them coast? Why couldn't we re-frame the curriculum offerings to REQUIRE the kids who have mastered the regular curriculum to address curriculum that they haven't yet mastered?
As an experiment, we agreed to accept one student into the algebra class, who scored quite high on the readiness test, but whose grades would not have allowed him to take the class. He was the lazy one; the unmotivated one. And, interestingly, he continued this same pattern in algebra. He passed the tests, but often just barely; he could have done much better if he had actually done more of the work. I am not sure what we learned from the experiment. I think it would have to be repeated a number of times, before we could decide either way - and clearly, it also depends on the students involved. Even with material better suited to his readiness, he didn't learn good work habits. Was it too late? Should we have tried this when he was younger? Or are lazy students always lazy?
I still think we should require the smart kids to work harder. Perhaps this is because I never had to work hard in school myself, until I was well into college - and by then it caused a number of related imposter syndrome problems. (An entirely different post).
One more thing about the boy who was required to take algebra, even though he refused to work hard. I had a software program for my algebra students called Green Globs and Graphing Equations (from Sunburst, I think). The idea is that the computer sprays some random green globs over an x-y grid and you are supposed to try to hit them with lines. The more globs you hit at one time, the higher (exponentially) your score. This gentleman got really interested in the program and didn't want to stop at just straight lines. He asked for equations of different types of lines, so that he might try hitting more globs with one equation. I gave him circles, parabolas, ellipses. He wanted still more. I gave him trig functions, exponentials, anything I could think of. I showed him how to add parameters to the sine functions, so that he could make them more dense (that really racks up the points). He may not have been motivated to do homework, but he certainly did find something that interested him.
I wonder what he does now.
Years ago, I was teaching algebra to 8th graders who were recommended by their previous math teacher for inclusion in the algebra class. In general, the criteria she used for recommending students for the class were two-fold: they had to have good mathematical understanding (evidence: tests) and they had to have good work habits ("A"s in math, which, with her grading system meant that they turned in virtually all of their homework).
Since I was the one who actually did the teaching of the algebra class, I thought it might be interesting to add to these criteria an algebra readiness test. So we gave the algebra readiness test to quite a few more students than she anticipated were actually qualified to take algebra. Interestingly, we now had a new problem. There were the kids who had good grades and who scored high on the readiness test. Clearly, they were ready for algebra. There were kids who had good grades, but who scored fairly low on the readiness test. Not quite as clear, but still relatively convincingly, they were not quite ready for algebra. But the ones that really led to a disagreement between the two of us were the ones in a third group: the ones who scored high on the readiness test, but who did not have especially good grades. These students were often described as the unmotivated ones, the ones who were lazy, the ones who just weren't interested in math. She felt these students should not be included, because they hadn't earned the right to be in the algebra class.
Not right away, but after thinking about it for a while, I began to wonder: why do we give smart kids a pass on taking classes or learning material that they are clearly ready for? For kids on the lower end of the ability spectrum, or kids with specific learning disabilities, do we let them opt out of addressing their weaknesses? No. We may give them extra support to help them handle their challenges, but we don't let them say, No, I am not interested in reading, so I am not going to do this hard reading, I am just going to read this lower level stuff that I know I can do just fine.
Why DO we let the smart kids opt out of challenging material?
And then, to carry that a bit further, what if we re-framed gifted education in terms of not just letting kids advance to higher level material, but instead use a slightly different argument: all students need to learn to work hard and to develop good study skills. Therefore, we need to place all students in curricula that are in their zone of proximal development (ZPG). Naturally, this will be an approximation. Teachers with 25 or more students in their classes can't be expected to individualize the entire class for each student, but it should be at least a goal. Kids who are reading 2 or 3 grade levels above their class level should be required to work just as hard at new reading goals as kids who are reading 2 or 3 grade levels below their class level. Why shouldn't they? Why do we let them coast? Why couldn't we re-frame the curriculum offerings to REQUIRE the kids who have mastered the regular curriculum to address curriculum that they haven't yet mastered?
As an experiment, we agreed to accept one student into the algebra class, who scored quite high on the readiness test, but whose grades would not have allowed him to take the class. He was the lazy one; the unmotivated one. And, interestingly, he continued this same pattern in algebra. He passed the tests, but often just barely; he could have done much better if he had actually done more of the work. I am not sure what we learned from the experiment. I think it would have to be repeated a number of times, before we could decide either way - and clearly, it also depends on the students involved. Even with material better suited to his readiness, he didn't learn good work habits. Was it too late? Should we have tried this when he was younger? Or are lazy students always lazy?
I still think we should require the smart kids to work harder. Perhaps this is because I never had to work hard in school myself, until I was well into college - and by then it caused a number of related imposter syndrome problems. (An entirely different post).
One more thing about the boy who was required to take algebra, even though he refused to work hard. I had a software program for my algebra students called Green Globs and Graphing Equations (from Sunburst, I think). The idea is that the computer sprays some random green globs over an x-y grid and you are supposed to try to hit them with lines. The more globs you hit at one time, the higher (exponentially) your score. This gentleman got really interested in the program and didn't want to stop at just straight lines. He asked for equations of different types of lines, so that he might try hitting more globs with one equation. I gave him circles, parabolas, ellipses. He wanted still more. I gave him trig functions, exponentials, anything I could think of. I showed him how to add parameters to the sine functions, so that he could make them more dense (that really racks up the points). He may not have been motivated to do homework, but he certainly did find something that interested him.
I wonder what he does now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)