I was subbing for a 4th grade with around 25 students. The kids switch classes for math and I had a group of 30 students. I was not explicitly told that they were the higher group, but this is the common way of dividing kids when they switch classes. Usually the top group gets more students, the middle group has an average number, and the low group gets fewer students.
And now I am pondering what the effects of this are for gifted and highly gifted students. On the one hand, the level of the whole class can be somewhat higher. Generally, these groups use exactly the same textbooks, but sometimes their homework or side activities are a bit different. And, if there are exceptionally able students in the class, the teacher could possibly cluster group them (though I have never seen any indication that teachers have done so). On the other hand, the classes are larger, which means more grading, more classroom management challenges (even finding enough places for the extra students to sit), and more communication duties (parents, homeroom teachers).
So, is it helpful? Probably. Is it sufficient? Probably not, in some cases.
Showing posts with label highly_gifted. Show all posts
Showing posts with label highly_gifted. Show all posts
Thursday, October 24, 2013
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.
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, June 11, 2012
Gifted Awareness Blog Tour - Giftedness as an Adult
Hello, and welcome to those of you who are visiting the Gifted Awareness Blog Tour.
http://ultranet.giftededucation.org.nz/WebSpace/696/
The Problems of Getting Stuck
A year ago, I attended the First International Conference on Gifted Adults. I attended mostly because it was close by and because, well, I am a gifted adult. I didn't expect to spend most of the conference crying. And I want to apologize to the presenters for any discomfort I caused them. You see, rather than follow the stages of adult giftedness that they outlined, I have periodically become stuck in a stage that I feel I should have already mastered.
I have searched my computer and the Internet in vain for a list of the stages of adult giftedness. But I can recall some of my "stuck" times. One of them came early. When I graduated from college, I had just completed teacher certification and was ready to start teaching somewhere. Only, that was a time of a massive oversupply of teachers. It was very difficult for a newly minted teacher to find a job, so I took a job as a secretary. STUCK doing something I really didn't want to do and which kept me from moving forward in my chosen field. This was a time when I was "supposed" to be establishing myself in my chosen field and working toward competency. I eventually found a job as an assistant teacher in a private school - not much money, but at least, a foot in the door. Only then, we moved.
Feeling that perhaps I would be more employable with more background, I returned to college for a master's degree in education. And I did, in fact, find a job teaching. And then, we moved again - this time for just one year. I eventually found a job, but it was only part time and I had to quit when we moved back. This happened not only once, but a couple of times, following my husband's career moves. STUCK and thwarted in establishing competency.
Meanwhile, I went back to school again, this time for a master's degree in computer science - I had doubts about teaching and thought maybe I would be better as a computer person. I got a job as a computer support person.
And then came my second major "STUCK" time. I wanted children, but had trouble getting pregnant. This was "supposed" to be the time for generative production, but it wasn't happening.
Seven years later, I eventually did have a baby, with a second one two years after that, but for those seven years, I felt STUCK and unable to progress as a person.
There have been other major STUCK times in my life: again, due to moving, losing and quitting jobs, changing fields of work entirely, and not being able to get a job in my chosen field, most recently due to age and massive cutbacks in education. So I haven't exactly followed the standard trajectory of gifted adult development. And, being STUCK is a critical stage of adult giftedness, in my experience. It isn't like Dabrowski's positive disintegration and then moving to a higher level of development; it is almost the exact opposite. I was ready to take on new challenges, but there seemed to be massive barriers in my way, barriers not of my own making, but rather external barriers.
Perhaps all of this is boringly normal, but it is one thing I think the conference didn't really address. Is the experience of gifted adults significantly different from average adults when they are prevented from progressing through life's developmental stages, due to various factors? Does Imposter Syndrome and self-doubt take over more than it should? What are the mental health issues that need to be addressed with gifted adults who cannot, for whatever reason, go forward with life?
And, there is one other issue that needs its own paragraph - multi-potentiality. I have been fairly good at just about all of the things I have tried. In some cases, I feel my STUCK times have been exacerbated by my ability to switch to a different field entirely. Rather than continuing to develop as a teacher, I switched to computer science. Rather than sticking with computer science, I studied biochemistry. Rather than sticking to biochemistry, I returned to education. Someone at the conference mentioned that he was told early on to be "a jack of all trades and a master of ONE" - an obvious change to the standard aphorism. I wish I had been told that, but I doubt if my younger self would have listened. Is it good advice? I don't know. I don't regret my diverse career paths. I regret my lack of sufficient competence in any of them. I wish I had had more guidance through the STUCK times.
http://ultranet.giftededucation.org.nz/WebSpace/696/
The Problems of Getting Stuck
A year ago, I attended the First International Conference on Gifted Adults. I attended mostly because it was close by and because, well, I am a gifted adult. I didn't expect to spend most of the conference crying. And I want to apologize to the presenters for any discomfort I caused them. You see, rather than follow the stages of adult giftedness that they outlined, I have periodically become stuck in a stage that I feel I should have already mastered.
I have searched my computer and the Internet in vain for a list of the stages of adult giftedness. But I can recall some of my "stuck" times. One of them came early. When I graduated from college, I had just completed teacher certification and was ready to start teaching somewhere. Only, that was a time of a massive oversupply of teachers. It was very difficult for a newly minted teacher to find a job, so I took a job as a secretary. STUCK doing something I really didn't want to do and which kept me from moving forward in my chosen field. This was a time when I was "supposed" to be establishing myself in my chosen field and working toward competency. I eventually found a job as an assistant teacher in a private school - not much money, but at least, a foot in the door. Only then, we moved.
Feeling that perhaps I would be more employable with more background, I returned to college for a master's degree in education. And I did, in fact, find a job teaching. And then, we moved again - this time for just one year. I eventually found a job, but it was only part time and I had to quit when we moved back. This happened not only once, but a couple of times, following my husband's career moves. STUCK and thwarted in establishing competency.
Meanwhile, I went back to school again, this time for a master's degree in computer science - I had doubts about teaching and thought maybe I would be better as a computer person. I got a job as a computer support person.
And then came my second major "STUCK" time. I wanted children, but had trouble getting pregnant. This was "supposed" to be the time for generative production, but it wasn't happening.
Seven years later, I eventually did have a baby, with a second one two years after that, but for those seven years, I felt STUCK and unable to progress as a person.
There have been other major STUCK times in my life: again, due to moving, losing and quitting jobs, changing fields of work entirely, and not being able to get a job in my chosen field, most recently due to age and massive cutbacks in education. So I haven't exactly followed the standard trajectory of gifted adult development. And, being STUCK is a critical stage of adult giftedness, in my experience. It isn't like Dabrowski's positive disintegration and then moving to a higher level of development; it is almost the exact opposite. I was ready to take on new challenges, but there seemed to be massive barriers in my way, barriers not of my own making, but rather external barriers.
Perhaps all of this is boringly normal, but it is one thing I think the conference didn't really address. Is the experience of gifted adults significantly different from average adults when they are prevented from progressing through life's developmental stages, due to various factors? Does Imposter Syndrome and self-doubt take over more than it should? What are the mental health issues that need to be addressed with gifted adults who cannot, for whatever reason, go forward with life?
And, there is one other issue that needs its own paragraph - multi-potentiality. I have been fairly good at just about all of the things I have tried. In some cases, I feel my STUCK times have been exacerbated by my ability to switch to a different field entirely. Rather than continuing to develop as a teacher, I switched to computer science. Rather than sticking with computer science, I studied biochemistry. Rather than sticking to biochemistry, I returned to education. Someone at the conference mentioned that he was told early on to be "a jack of all trades and a master of ONE" - an obvious change to the standard aphorism. I wish I had been told that, but I doubt if my younger self would have listened. Is it good advice? I don't know. I don't regret my diverse career paths. I regret my lack of sufficient competence in any of them. I wish I had had more guidance through the STUCK times.
Saturday, October 01, 2011
Differentiation - It Isn't Enough for HG+ Kids
Yes, I know differentiation is the acceptable mantra for educators these days. I know I am supposed to tout the virtues of differentiating for every kid in the classroom. I know that, if potential principals see this, I will not be considered for full time jobs. But, I also know that, as a sub, I see very little of it.
For anyone who actually reads this, but who doesn't know my background, I will briefly say that I have taught in four states: Massachusetts (private schools), Illinois (public and private schools), Alaska (public and charter schools), and Colorado (public and charter schools). I have taught, either full time or subbing, in at least a dozen school districts, dozens of schools, and hundreds of different classrooms. I have gone through extensive training on differentiation and gifted, differentiation and special education, and differentiation in general.
I have seen very little differentiation in action. Some teachers will differentiate spelling lists. Some teachers will have different levels of book groups. Some teachers will pair up with other teachers and group the students for math classes. But, if we are talking about meeting the needs of kids outside of the middle of the bell curve, there is very little for those outlier kids. It can be done - I have seen 3 or 4 teachers who could do it. I laud them. But, in general, it isn't happening.
And, I think it is time that educators who are interested in meeting the needs of HG+ gifted students admit that differentiation, as it is practiced (or not practiced) just isn't enough. It isn't consistent enough, it isn't broad-based enough, and it isn't at the correct level. The further the gifted student is from the class average, the less appropriate any differentiated accommodations are.
Differentiation is a great thing to train teachers to do. It is effective to have the things that I mentioned above: leveled math, book groups, leveled spelling, different expectations for writing, etc. It just isn't enough to meet the needs of the highly, exceptionally, and profoundly gifted students. And I think it is time to stop pretending that regular classroom teachers can teach all students.
We know that inclusion has worked for a lot of kids with learning disabilities, but we also know that their special teachers, special classes, and supporting aides still have their jobs. In fact, there are loads of jobs advertised for special education aides. We know that differentiation isn't enough for these kids. The simple fact is that they need more support than this. Why don't we acknowledge the same for the highly, exceptionally, and profoundly gifted students. The regular classroom teachers just can't meet their needs.
Again: The regular classroom teachers just can't meet the needs of the highly, exceptionally, and profoundly gifted students. This was true before the great school budget problems; it is even more true now, with class sizes creeping up to ever higher numbers. It is unfair to classroom teachers to continually demand more and more of them. They already have more responsibilities and less time than they need in order to be maximally effective.
This rant is targeted mainly at elementary schools, but also somewhat at middle schools / junior highs. By the time the kids get to high school, we mostly stop pretending that a single teacher can teach all levels of ability in a single class. AP Calc AB is not differentiated and no one expects that AP Calc teacher to prepare lessons for students who might want to take the class, but who haven't yet mastered algebra. Nor is the algebra teacher expected to teach calculus to the one kid in the class who is ready for AP Calc AB. It just doesn't make sense.
For those of us who are interested in the HG+ kids, I think it is time to stop saying that differentiation can solve all of their educational needs. It isn't happening.
For anyone who actually reads this, but who doesn't know my background, I will briefly say that I have taught in four states: Massachusetts (private schools), Illinois (public and private schools), Alaska (public and charter schools), and Colorado (public and charter schools). I have taught, either full time or subbing, in at least a dozen school districts, dozens of schools, and hundreds of different classrooms. I have gone through extensive training on differentiation and gifted, differentiation and special education, and differentiation in general.
I have seen very little differentiation in action. Some teachers will differentiate spelling lists. Some teachers will have different levels of book groups. Some teachers will pair up with other teachers and group the students for math classes. But, if we are talking about meeting the needs of kids outside of the middle of the bell curve, there is very little for those outlier kids. It can be done - I have seen 3 or 4 teachers who could do it. I laud them. But, in general, it isn't happening.
And, I think it is time that educators who are interested in meeting the needs of HG+ gifted students admit that differentiation, as it is practiced (or not practiced) just isn't enough. It isn't consistent enough, it isn't broad-based enough, and it isn't at the correct level. The further the gifted student is from the class average, the less appropriate any differentiated accommodations are.
Differentiation is a great thing to train teachers to do. It is effective to have the things that I mentioned above: leveled math, book groups, leveled spelling, different expectations for writing, etc. It just isn't enough to meet the needs of the highly, exceptionally, and profoundly gifted students. And I think it is time to stop pretending that regular classroom teachers can teach all students.
We know that inclusion has worked for a lot of kids with learning disabilities, but we also know that their special teachers, special classes, and supporting aides still have their jobs. In fact, there are loads of jobs advertised for special education aides. We know that differentiation isn't enough for these kids. The simple fact is that they need more support than this. Why don't we acknowledge the same for the highly, exceptionally, and profoundly gifted students. The regular classroom teachers just can't meet their needs.
Again: The regular classroom teachers just can't meet the needs of the highly, exceptionally, and profoundly gifted students. This was true before the great school budget problems; it is even more true now, with class sizes creeping up to ever higher numbers. It is unfair to classroom teachers to continually demand more and more of them. They already have more responsibilities and less time than they need in order to be maximally effective.
This rant is targeted mainly at elementary schools, but also somewhat at middle schools / junior highs. By the time the kids get to high school, we mostly stop pretending that a single teacher can teach all levels of ability in a single class. AP Calc AB is not differentiated and no one expects that AP Calc teacher to prepare lessons for students who might want to take the class, but who haven't yet mastered algebra. Nor is the algebra teacher expected to teach calculus to the one kid in the class who is ready for AP Calc AB. It just doesn't make sense.
For those of us who are interested in the HG+ kids, I think it is time to stop saying that differentiation can solve all of their educational needs. It isn't happening.
Monday, September 19, 2011
Gifted - Percentage or Absolute?
When children are identified as gifted, the method of making such a determination sometimes uses a percentage of a given population, e.g., the 95th percentile of the children who take this test or the upper 8% of the students in this district on a specific measure. Sometimes, what is used is a standardized and normed intelligence test, such as the WISC IV or the Stanford-Binet 5. I have been pondering this lately and I have some thoughts about this.
Many people feel that giftedness brings with it special personality and emotional characteristics that are less prevalent in the general population, specifically, intensity and emotional sensitivity. If this is the case, then the percentage measures might need to be adjusted. Take, for example, a university or high tech community. There might be a larger percentage of gifted children in the schools in those communities, since favorable genetics and a favorable family/societal support system might both contribute to higher realization of intelligence potential. This might mean that, if the school uses the IQ test cut off, a larger percentage of children might be identified as gifted than would normally be expected. Instead of the usual 5 to 8 %, I have heard of percentages even as high as 25 % of the local population. The question is, should all of these children be identified? Should all of them be served? If the emotional and personality characteristics are taken into consideration, then I would argue that, if we think that those are valid criteria for identifying gifted people, then all of those students need to be identified and served.
But I have also heard it argued that only the upper 5 to 8 % of the students in any given population need to be identified, because the needs of those below that cutoff can be taken care of in the general classrooms. From this perspective, the level of learning in the classroom is typically aimed at the average ability level of the students in the class. If the population of students is above average, then the learning activities in the classroom will be target above the average of the standard curriculum.
Lately, I have been more convinced of the social and emotional differences of, especially, highly gifted children (and adults, for that matter). I think, regardless of percentages, all highly gifted people need differentiated support systems. Perhaps the academic needs can be based on percentages, but all students in the highly gifted group need to be offered counseling and mentoring appropriate to their intelligence level and not necessarily their prevalence in the population.
Many people feel that giftedness brings with it special personality and emotional characteristics that are less prevalent in the general population, specifically, intensity and emotional sensitivity. If this is the case, then the percentage measures might need to be adjusted. Take, for example, a university or high tech community. There might be a larger percentage of gifted children in the schools in those communities, since favorable genetics and a favorable family/societal support system might both contribute to higher realization of intelligence potential. This might mean that, if the school uses the IQ test cut off, a larger percentage of children might be identified as gifted than would normally be expected. Instead of the usual 5 to 8 %, I have heard of percentages even as high as 25 % of the local population. The question is, should all of these children be identified? Should all of them be served? If the emotional and personality characteristics are taken into consideration, then I would argue that, if we think that those are valid criteria for identifying gifted people, then all of those students need to be identified and served.
But I have also heard it argued that only the upper 5 to 8 % of the students in any given population need to be identified, because the needs of those below that cutoff can be taken care of in the general classrooms. From this perspective, the level of learning in the classroom is typically aimed at the average ability level of the students in the class. If the population of students is above average, then the learning activities in the classroom will be target above the average of the standard curriculum.
Lately, I have been more convinced of the social and emotional differences of, especially, highly gifted children (and adults, for that matter). I think, regardless of percentages, all highly gifted people need differentiated support systems. Perhaps the academic needs can be based on percentages, but all students in the highly gifted group need to be offered counseling and mentoring appropriate to their intelligence level and not necessarily their prevalence in the population.
Monday, February 04, 2008
Quotes
I subscribe to A Word A Day by Anu Garg and I enjoy the words. But in all honesty, I enjoy the quotes even more. I like how they make me think about something. They are almost like poetry of ideas.
Here is today's quote:
............................................................................
We all have handicaps. The difference is that some of us must reveal ours,
while others must conceal theirs, to be treated with mercy. -Yahia
Lababidi, writer (b. 1973)
............................................................................
This is a quote that could easily appear on one the the GT groups that I belong to. Gifted people, and yes, I must use that "G" word, since it is the professionally accepted term for people who are fast and/or deep learners, are one of the groups that must often REVEAL their handicaps in order to be accepted. I have frequently taken part in conversations where, at some point, someone in the group will say, "You are so smart, I just can't keep up with you!" After such an outburst, the only way to get the conversation going again, or at least the easiest, is to admit that you might know a lot about X (whatever was being discussed), but you are terrible at Y (something equally valued - optimally something the blurter is good at).
People who are good at sports have to do this sometimes, too. "Yes, I am good at basketball, but I just don't get my math homework."
I guess it comforts us to think that, in the greater scheme of things, while some people might be good at X, Y, and Z, they aren't good at A, B, or C - to think that things might be marginally fair or equal, if we look at everything. The problem is, we really know that it isn't true. There are some people who are good at just about everything they try. And some people who truly aren't very good at anything.
But we can ignore reality, as long as people are willing to play the social game of pretend.
Here is today's quote:
............................................................................
We all have handicaps. The difference is that some of us must reveal ours,
while others must conceal theirs, to be treated with mercy. -Yahia
Lababidi, writer (b. 1973)
............................................................................
This is a quote that could easily appear on one the the GT groups that I belong to. Gifted people, and yes, I must use that "G" word, since it is the professionally accepted term for people who are fast and/or deep learners, are one of the groups that must often REVEAL their handicaps in order to be accepted. I have frequently taken part in conversations where, at some point, someone in the group will say, "You are so smart, I just can't keep up with you!" After such an outburst, the only way to get the conversation going again, or at least the easiest, is to admit that you might know a lot about X (whatever was being discussed), but you are terrible at Y (something equally valued - optimally something the blurter is good at).
People who are good at sports have to do this sometimes, too. "Yes, I am good at basketball, but I just don't get my math homework."
I guess it comforts us to think that, in the greater scheme of things, while some people might be good at X, Y, and Z, they aren't good at A, B, or C - to think that things might be marginally fair or equal, if we look at everything. The problem is, we really know that it isn't true. There are some people who are good at just about everything they try. And some people who truly aren't very good at anything.
But we can ignore reality, as long as people are willing to play the social game of pretend.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)