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. 

Montessori Upper Elementary

I got to sub in a Montessori school today - only a half day, but I had wanted to sub in that school for a while.  When I lived in Alaska, I subbed several times in a Montessori school and was impressed with it.  And I have wondered since then how general the Montessori model was for upper elementary age children.  It was interesting to me that several of the things were the same and others different.

Physical characteristics of the room
True to the Montessori model of schooling, there were a lot of wooden materials in both classrooms.   But, also in both classrooms, the wooden materials don't seem to be being used much.  For instance, today I saw a couple of interesting models of the sun and the planets, including the Earth and its moons, but they were high up on a shelf and not in use, while the students worked on a worksheet packet about phases of the moon.  There were a lot of reference books available, but the students seemed to use the information in the packets the most.  The room in Alaska had wooden tables of various sizes throughout; this room had standard desks for each student, with small tables at various places around the room.  The room in Alaska seemed spacious; this one seemed very crowded.  But, in this case, some of the crowding was due to a plethora of large tanks for turtles, lizards, fish, and other creatures.  Personally, I would like to have seen some more large tables for their work.

Assignments
In both classes, the students had a work schedule that they filled out.  Long term projects were listed in one section, daily work in sections devoted to each day.  In both classes, the assignments seemed to be specific to grade levels and not to current achievement levels.  The 4th graders had one social studies assignment; the 5th graders had a different assignment.  There were two different math books, one for 4th grade, one for 5th grade.  In a way, I am a little disappointed that there didn't seem to be much individualization of achievement levels.  It may be that the classes are differentiated, since there are multiple 4/5 grades in this school.  I really couldn't tell that.

Textbooks/Worksheets
This classroom seemed to use worksheets more than the school in Alaska.  In Alaska, they had a lot of laminated assignment materials that the students rotated in using.  Since the assignments usually came in 2 or 3 week chunks, there was plenty of time for the students to rotate through the assignment materials.  Neither school used textbooks for much of their work, except for math.  

Other interesting things
The class had an aide; the one in Alaska did, too.  What a difference this makes!  Supervision is easier, grading is easier, talking to individual students and small groups is easier.  It was a moderately large class, 25 students, but you can get to know the kids better, even in just a half day, with another adult in the room.  Your focus doesn't need to be quite as widely scattered.

The academic level of the students in this class seemed average.  So perhaps the same work for all of them in each grade was appropriate.  It was hard for me to tell.

Final thing
Both Montessori schools address teachers, administrators, and staff by their first names.  It must be a characteristic of the Montessori philosophy.  I am not sure I am comfortable with that.  I think I would prefer some mild honorific, such as Teacher Laura or Ms. Laura.  I guess I am not as egalitarian as the Montessori philosophy would have me be.  Still, I had a interesting morning.  I would go back.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


__________

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

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.

Firearms for Teachers - No

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/16/nyregion/firing-at-man-in-times-square-police-wound-two-bystanders.html?smid=fb-share&_r=0

JS posted the above link on Facebook.  These were my comments:  

I just can't see teachers being able to spend enough time in order to be competent at the use of firearms. They are under time stress already - too much to do and not enough time to do it in. It is already a major factor in burn-out. 
And, if we are training teachers, shouldn't we be training them to teach, not shoot?
________
And, once again, I am going to compare teachers to doctors.  Would you expect your doctor to have to carry a firearm in the hospital?  Would you want her to spend many hours of her work week keeping her shooting skills sharp?  Yes, there may be doctors who enjoy shooting practice and who already keep up their shooting skills, but, for the most part, we acknowledge that doctors are probably too busy for this to be a requirement of their work life.  

This is the SAME for teachers.  They are way too busy already.  It takes regular practice to retain skills at shooting.  Without the regular practice and training, skills deteriorate - ask any police officer.  And, as in the above article, even trained police officers don't have a high hit rate.  Doctors don't have the time to train like police officers; teachers don't either. 

The Common Core and the Common Good and Where the Smart Kids Are: Comments on Recent Blog Posts by Famous People

 This post is in regard to the following two articles: 

The Common Core and the Common Good

Where the Smart Kids Are

From what I see, Mr. Blow (The Common Core and the Common Good) is correct.  There is nothing wrong per se about the common core standards.  What is wrong is how they are being implemented and general conditions of teaching these days.  Teachers work directly with students too many hours of the day and don't have nearly enough time to prepare lessons, to look for top quality lessons, to grade student products, to work with other teachers, to work with parents, etc. It is as though you were being given a test on your knowledge of differential equations, before you had a chance to study them, and were then given a test on the subject, to be completed in 10 minutes.

I am wondering if it is even possible that Common Core will be implemented well.  Schools are on such stringent budgets right now; class sizes are rising higher and higher; curriculum specialist positions have been cut drastically.  My sister is the assistant superintendent for a school district and they have repeatedly cut her budget.  Many years ago, she had curriculum coordinators in each of the broad subject areas, but over the years they have cut and cut and much of the burden has fallen solely on her.  People just can't get it into their heads that teachers and school administrators have to have enough time and support to do their jobs well.  Yes, you need well trained, intelligent teachers, but you can't get by with hiring just one of those well-trained, intelligent people and expecting them to do the jobs of several people at once.

And as for Annie Murphy Paul's article about students in high schools in other countries, I believe that the problem starts at a much younger age than high school.  I was subbing in a school recently in a mixed-age classroom of 3rd and 4th graders.  I asked the students I taught (as per teacher instructions) what the best part of their day was. The answer was overwhelmingly “recess”, followed by “going home”. When pressed to mention something they had done DURING instructional time, most of the students could not think of a single thing. The students seem to think that education is something that is done TO them and not what they do for themselves. There is no buy-in to the process. They aren’t interested in the gimmicks that we try to use to get them involved; they aren’t interested in finding out answers to any questions. In fact, they don’t even HAVE any questions more complex than where to get paper and pencils, how much time they have until recess or lunch. They have no concern for the abysmal quality of their work, because, in fact, it doesn't seem to them that it is THEIR work, it is work they have to do for the teacher.

The students were supposed to write a "sticker story".  Using stickers to make a picture or using stickers to represent individual words, they were to write a story with details and a beginning, middle, and end.  They were to use grammar and spelling as well as they possibly could.  This writing was to become part of their portfolios.  It is a good thing this is the "before" sample, as I found the writing to be terrible.  Some of the stories were clever and humorous (considering that they were 3rd and 4th graders), but the mechanics of the stories were awful.  Most of the students could not even print correctly (mixtures of capital and small letters at random).  Most did not capitalize or punctuate correctly.  Spelling was abysmal.  And very few of the stories actually followed the directions, with a beginning, middle, and end.  I helped a number of kids get a story outline, but even that didn't help.  Many of the students told me that they weren't good at X, one (or more) of the requirements of the writing, so they simply gave up.  We just can't allow students to say this.  We have to STOP giving students a pass on this.  We need to insist that they keep trying until they CAN do it.  We have to help them learn to CARE about the quality of THEIR work. 

Another assignment that they had was to compute the "value" of their names, given that A = 1 cent, B = 2 cents, and so forth.  Even though they insisted that they had done this "last year" and it was "2nd grade work" (which they were, actually, correct about), there was at least 1/3 of the class that couldn't do it.  They couldn't figure out how to write their names and assign each letter a "value", and ultimately, they couldn't add a sequence of 7 or 8 (or however many) numbers.  And, yes, this WAS modeled for them. 

Now, I know that I am "just a sub", but I know, also, that it takes time to make sure that each of the students gets help in doing the assignment.  Fortunately, two students were absent from an already not-so-big class (21 students; 19 there today), so I was able to help individually the students who could not do the assignment - and to make sure that the ones who tried to hide that they couldn't do it were still held to its completion. But many teachers are not fortunate to have such small classes. 

We have to stop allowing students to say that they aren't good at something.  That is the whole reason for them being in school - to learn to be better at things.  Teachers seem to have the mantra now that students should be valued for their differences and that students don't need to be good at everything.  That is certainly still true, but they can and should be held to being much better at the fundamentals - and I include arithmetic and basic writing as part of those fundamentals.  We can't keep allowing kids to beg off doing better than this. 

I was disappointed and discouraged by the level of skills I saw.

There are times when I would like to turn the whole school model upside down.  I subbed once in a school for teenage students who, either because of jobs or child care responsibilities or disciplinary reasons could not attend a regular high school.  Instead, they came in whenever they could to a large, open space room.  In the center of this room were tables and computers for student access.  Around the periphery of the room were cubicles for the teachers.  Students could make appointments with the teachers for instructional time, either individually or in groups, or could just ask teachers questions during the course of their work.  Yes, there were requirements, but, like the Korean schools, the requirements were in the form of exit exams for various courses or various types of diplomas.  It was the STUDENT's goal to finish the coursework.  The teachers were there to help.

I would like to see this type of buy-in at the younger grades, too.  Kids come to school so eager to learn and then it gradually disappears, until by 3rd or 4th grade, they are already jaded.  I wish I could be a long term observer in some other countries around the world to see what it is about their schools and their cultures that keeps students committed to THEIR educations. 

Politically Incorrect

I subbed in a school today that had a significant number of special needs students.  These students came to the classroom I was in for math.  There were 3 or 4 classes at the grade level I was teaching and this teacher had the lowest group of students.  There were approximately 26 students in the class, 4 of whom were special needs students.  An additional special needs student was absent.  There were 4 aides.  Three of the special needs students required one on one aides and the other two (normally including the absent student), evidently could be helped with just one aide.  One of the special needs students could do part of the day's lesson, with help from the aide; the rest could not and were working on things that were unrelated (one was working on days of the week; one was counting dots on a die and trying to say the number; the third did nothing, as far as I could tell).   

I have no objection to special needs students being in the room when aides are provided for those who need them, and most especially, I think they belong there if they can do all or part of the lesson with adaptations.  But I am not sure why the students who were utterly unable to do the lesson - or anything even close - were there.  The special needs students sit separately and don't/can't interact with the other students.  Even that would be fine, except one of the students was evidently unhappy about something.  He spent most of the class period moaning and groaning very loudly, and occasionally emitting a high pitched, drawn out whine.  It was very disconcerting to me and it was extremely difficult for the other students to hear me talk above the nearly constant groaning and whining.  I was supposed to lead the students through one worksheet/hands-on exercise and then teach them how to play a game. 

I feel the other students were short-changed - at least today.  Perhaps they could concentrate better than I could, because they were used to the constant noise.  But it left me with nerves jangling and feeling that I couldn't adequately help the other students, when they couldn't hear me.  26 or so students in a classroom is a lot, anyway, and when they need more support than other students, the addition of the special needs students seemed a bit much.  I feel that the class should somehow have been significantly smaller or the students who were unable to participate in the lesson and were making nearly constant noise should have been removed.

I guess I am completely politically incorrect.   And the regular teacher must be a saint.

________________________________________

Additional thoughts, upon further reflection:
How do we determine what is fair in the classroom?  Treatment of students can NEVER be equal, since each child is unique and has unique needs and experiences.  Do we attempt to treat them all the same and say we were fair?  What does the "least restrictive environment" mean in terms of children with severe disabilities?  What does it mean in terms of the rest of the children in the classroom?  

Each One Counts

For a long time now, I have been harping about class size and today, I would like to compare two of the classes I have had this week.  They aren't strictly comparable - they were different grade levels and in different districts, but since I am not going to make a statistical appeal today, it doesn't really matter that they are not as comparable as one might wish.  Both classes were in relatively well-to-do neighborhoods, with fairly privileged children.  One class had around 24 students, the other had around 32.

In the first case, as a sub, I had 24 names to learn and 24 new students to interact with.  Learning 24 new names each day is doable, though difficult.  Learning 32 names is probably not doable for most subs.  How would you feel if your child was one of the ones the teacher couldn't learn the name of?  Probably, most people would let it slide.  But during the course of his/her schooling each child will have nearly a full year of subs.  One year of being nameless?

In the first class, I could spend a couple of minutes talking to a boy who wanted to tell me about his project; I could spend another few minutes with the know-it-all girl, who needed to show me how competent she was as a teacher's helper; I could talk individually to each child during the literacy block.  In the second school, I got to talk individually to some of the students, but not most of them. 

You know what kids remember most about their schooling? - how the teachers made them feel.  I could feel so much better about my interactions with the class of 24 students than with the class of 32 students.  24 is still a bit bigger than I would like, but 32 is definitely past the point where it is possible to have a significant number of personal interactions.  With 32, there is a lot more time spent keeping kids on task, correcting behavior, and take care of administrative tasks.  With 24, there is room in the classroom to move around to different areas for different types of activities.  With 32, the room is so packed with desks and chairs that there is frequently very little room to maneuver.  With 24, it is easier to get to each student to answer a question or to point out a problem.  With 32, it is much harder.

Each child counts.  Each interaction counts.  When people say that class size doesn't matter, according to research, they are looking at test scores.  Maybe there, it doesn't matter.  I don't really believe that, but that isn't my point today.  Children are much more than test scores.  They are real people who need personal interactions, even the surly kid who doesn't want to talk to the teacher.  Each one needs to know that the teacher cares.  Even if that teacher is "just a sub".

Bar Exam for Teachers?

 OK, now the AFT is proposing yet another exam:

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/06/a-bar-exam-for-teachers/259182/#.T_CRvHw5WxM.facebook 

How would this be different from the PRAXIS or related state exams? Colorado has exams called the PLACE exams. There is the Federally Highly Qualified standard. And, there is also already a National Board Certificate. All of that in addition to the regular certification process. None of those exams, standards, or programs has led to fantastic increases in the amount of respect teachers get. Do they think that magically, because it is called a "bar exam" that respect for teachers will increase?

I would suggest that there are other things to do to raise the respect teachers get:  give them time to do an excellent job; keep the number of students that they deal with small enough to manage - small enough so that they can do a decent job of planning, teaching, and assessment; pay them enough, so that, when the stress is high, they aren't tempted to just chuck the whole thing and get a better job. 

Gerald Coles: Why Bother Educating the Poor? - Living in Dialogue - Education Week Teacher

Gerald Coles: Why Bother Educating the Poor? - Living in Dialogue - Education Week Teacher

Reforming education has been a national pastime since my mother first started teaching - and my mother is now 97 years old.  But the recent (past 15 years) of reforms have been the meanest spirited at all.  In the guise of improving education, they have made it virtually impossible for teachers to enjoy being in the classroom.  There are ever increasing demands to cover ever more "standards"; there are significantly larger classes and therefore a much increased work load; teachers are required to accommodate an ever increasing list of special education students and practices; there is less provision for kids who are at the extremes of "normal".  It would almost seem as though people are determined to eradicate creativity and caring from the classroom.  Creativity is a waste of time and caring is monumentally difficult,  with so many students to take care of.

People who would have made excellent teachers are driven away from teaching or don't even consider it as a profession, because of low pay, low prestige, uncertainty in working conditions, and heavy work loads.  People who enter the profession with hope soon encounter the reality of the job and drop out of teaching in droves.  I read recently that teaching loses half of the teachers that enter the profession in 5 years. 

The increased testing regime has been discussed extensively in many places, so I am not going to address that.  I am going to discuss what I consider the most insidious of the reforms: differentiation.  On paper and in theory, this looks great.  Teachers are taught simple techniques for making lesson plans adaptable to the various ability levels of all of the students in the classroom.  What proponents of differentiation often fail to consider is the amount of extra time required to plan for a differentiated classroom and the fact that this increases with the increase in ability levels in the classroom.  A simple 5th grade lesson on the rock cycle can be an example.  There is a standard textbook, which is probably written at a 5th grade reading level.  Most of the students will be able to read it, but there will be a few who cannot.  The teacher has to find other ways of teaching the rock cycle for the students who cannot read the text - maybe an audio recording, maybe partner reading, maybe a movie, maybe a simpler book.  Each of these have to be checked to make sure they cover the standards and objectives for the lesson.  Then, there are the kids in the classroom who have special needs.  Each of their needs must be accommodated in the lesson plan.  And finally, there are probably a few gifted kids in the class, maybe even a highly gifted kid, who has studied the rock cycle extensively on his own, has a large rock collection at home, and is interested in comparing the difference in microscopic structure of granite and marble.  The teacher knows nothing about high school or college level geology and would have to struggle to find appropriate materials for this child.

All this might be do-able, if the class size were under 20, or if the teacher could count on teaching the same thing several years in a row and could gradually amass materials to use with outlier kids, or if there were a curriculum specialist would could gather appropriate materials or find a mentor.  But the recent budget cuts have boosted class sizes into the mid 30s, teachers are often reassigned year after year, depending on class numbers, the curriculum itself is redesigned on a regular basis, and the curriculum specialists have been eliminated by budgeting problems.

And, the fact of the matter is, elementary teachers are almost universally responsible for multiple lessons in one day.  When I was teaching full time, I counted 34 different lessons that I was responsible for in one week (grades K through 8, for me).  Planning for these lessons, teaching them, and assessing student progress took much more than the 30 minutes planning time I was allotted each day.  

Simply put, the job of teaching has become too much.  Teachers pay lip service to differentiation, to standards, to new technologies, but in my experience, they can't do it all.  Perhaps I see a biased sample of what most teachers are doing.  I am a substitute teacher, so teachers might, in fact, simplify the lessons they leave for me, so that a sub can handle them.  But, I look carefully for signs of differentiation or individualization or indications that the students think that the lessons I am given to teach are somehow different from what they usually do, and I don't see very much evidence for those things.  It seems to me that most of the teachers end up following the textbooks and "covering" the content they are responsible for.  There simply isn't enough time to do anything else.  Parents then wonder why their students' needs aren't considered.  They decide that the teacher is lacking or doesn't care.  And the stress piles up on the teachers. 

So what do the 1% do?  They send their kids to private schools.  I recently read the blog of a teacher who chose to teach in private schools.  She originally planned to teach in public schools, but couldn't find a job there, so took a job in a private school - and stayed in those schools.  She claimed in the blog that she was grateful for having stayed there, because they allowed her the creativity and autonomy to mold her work into an enjoyable career.

Monica Edinger's Blog

I am one of the co-founders of a private school and I helped establish that school because the public school wasn't serving the needs of my highly gifted child.  It isn't entirely in keeping with my support of public schooling, but, when it is your child, you do what you can to get them the best education you can afford.  And, people who can afford those schools often do - schools which often have smaller classes and more autonomy for the teachers. Meanwhile, the public schools are suffering.

The Five Misconceptions About Teaching Math and Science

This comment is based on an article in Slate, brought to my attention by The MathMom: The Five Misconceptions About Teaching Math and Science 

 There are several interesting quotes in this short article. Here is one: "The fact that we score poorly now does not mean that our educational system has deteriorated. In fact, it was always bad." I like that, since it points to a different solution from going back to the "good old days".

Another interesting quote about recruiting good teachers: "The problem, however, is not recruiting people into teaching. The problem is keeping them in teaching. Teachers work very hard. They are not paid enough. They endure great stress daily. These factors drive many out of the profession. A study by the National Education Association found that the five year dropout rate for new teachers is 50 percent."

But then, the article says that the way to retain more new teachers is professional development. If teachers are overworked, underpaid, and overstressed, how is making them sit in on more inservice training or more coursework going to help? I respectfully disagree that this is the most important way to retain new teachers.  I think education needs to deal with the problems of overwork, underpayment, and stress.

Teachers' Work Schedules

This post comments about the following article and revises some of the material I posted in response to it on Facebook.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2159173/70-teachers-nighter-prepare-lessons-according-survey-teaching-magazine-concludes-hours-rest-us.html

The above article, which is from England, has recently been making the rounds on Facebook. My nephew commented and wanted to know if, in my experience, it also applied to teachers in the United States. The article claims an average of 48.3 hours per week for teachers in England. I told him that the teachers I know personally all worked at least that much. My own schedule, in one of my full time jobs was something like this: 7 to 5 at school, M-F. Sat and Sun 4 to 6 hours each. I had to do a lot of the work at school, because I managed the computer lab and all of the computers in the school, in addition to preparing and grading 34 different lessons each week.

I don't know the statistics for K-12 teachers in the US. It would be interesting to find out, though. I know a lot of teachers who put in much more than the 37.5 (or close to that) hours a week that they are nominally contracted to work.

I recently subbed in a class, where the teacher mistakenly entered the work order for a full day, but only needed a half day. So, I ended up in the teacher's lounge for a substantial time, waiting, in case they found something else they needed me to do (sorting the mail was one task I was given). The teachers were discussing the latest round of negotiations with the school board. They were completely fed up with the extra hours, over and above the negotiated work week that they were putting in. They were at the point of resolving, for the next school year, to work only the amount of school hours they were nominally responsible for. They were concerned that it would be hard on the students - to not have extra tutoring time, extra parent conferences, not as much feedback on submitted work, but they reasoned that, in the long run, it was the only way for the public to realize that the services they were getting were so much over and above what they think the teachers are doing.

Imagine for a minute, if it were thought that the only time a lawyer was working was during the time spent in court or the time spent with clients. Or, the only work that a doctor actually could claim was the few minutes spent in direct contact with patients. Teachers are generally in direct contact with students for at least 300 minutes per day. Virtually all of the prep work, the grading, the record keeping, meeting with administration, fellow teachers, and parents takes place outside of the direct contact time. Many professions require a great deal of "behind the scenes" work. Teaching is no exception, but this is rarely considered when talking about teachers' schedules. Teachers are typically allotted 30 to 60 minutes per day to deal with planning, grading, preparing materials, cleaning up, meeting with parents, other teachers, and administrators, record keeping, learning to use new technology, dealing with new curricula, and so on.

Just a brief example. A 6th grade teacher might know that the curriculum specifies studying about Ancient Egypt. There is a textbook, but reading the lesson and answering the questions at the end of the chapter isn't the engaging project that parents and administrators want to see. The teacher can develop her own projects, which takes time; or the teacher can search the Internet for interesting sites to visit or interesting projects to do. Try it. Try searching the Internet for relevant, appropriate, and interesting material, checking out the entire site to make sure it is OK for your students. Make sure that the project covers all of the standards and content you are responsible for. If you can do it successfully in the 30 minutes that is allotted for planning time, congratulations. Now do it for math, science, reading, spelling, writing, and possibly art as well. So, maybe those projects can last a whole week.  You still have to develop the grading rubric, write and print the instructions for the students, and perhaps write a note to parents about the projects. Now make those projects all relevant to kids whose abilities range from second grade reading levels to ninth grade reading levels. Modify each of the lessons so that both your students with learning difficulties and that gifted student have challenging things to work on for each of those lessons. Now try individualizing the curriculum for all 30 students in your class.

You can't do that in 30 minutes a day??? You must not care about your students.

Sigh.

Teachers Can't Do It All

I recently reacted to this poster on Facebook, in the group International Gifted Education.  I wrote:  "This is a great sentiment, but where are real teachers supposed to find the time to do this?"  The only person who commented on that original question was Roya Klingner, who jokingly said that good teachers will find the time by working 20 hours a day.  I appreciate the humor in this reply, but I stand by my response:  "Seriously, though, I think we gifted advocates need to stop proposing solutions that put an even greater burden on regular classroom teachers. Most of them are overstressed already."

I  have just about had it with people piling ever more responsibilities and requirements on classroom teachers.  From new standards, new tests, and new technologies to increasing class sizes, dealing with kids with special needs, and increased extra-curricular duties (bus duty, recess duty, detention supervision, after school tutoring), teachers' plates are already full.  When in the world do they have time to individualize curriculum?  People, teachers are human.  They need to eat sometimes, go to the bathroom, sit down for a few minutes.  They have families, they need to get their own exercise, they may even do things for themselves like play an instrument, garden, solve calculus equations for fun (OK, maybe that is a stretch).  

I am passionate about gifted kids, but I am also a substitute teacher.  I go to many different classrooms in many different schools and school districts.  Some schools structure their classes differently so as to ease the teachers' jobs, but all of the teachers I have subbed for have had full and extremely busy days.   

Yes, teachers should learn to differentiate curriculum, to give kids choices in methods of demonstrating what they have learned, to pose projects that can be tackled in different ways.  Good teachers do this and poorer teachers try.  But accommodating individual learners is HARD and takes TIME, especially if the learners are gifted.  Teachers can help the kids who are struggling.  Breaking down the skills and concepts they are teaching into smaller chunks is something teachers usually are good at.  They even, usually, have a large number of other teachers and aides who help them with this.  But helping gifted learners requires a lot more of a teacher.  It requires going beyond what they are familiar with, sometimes learning new material themselves, finding other people who can help, judging what is available, so that, if something must be purchased, the money (usually in extremely short supply, occasionally the teacher's own) can be spent well.  

We might as well admit this:  teachers can't do this.  They can't individualize curriculum for kids who may be placed in their classes, but who are 3 or 4 grade levels above their nominal grades.  Yes, as I have written before, there are phenomenal teachers who can manage this - I am in awe of them - but we have to stop expecting the average teacher to be able to accomplish this.  Teachers have been exploited far too long.  "If you really cared about the kids you teach, you would..."  Fill in the blank (see a list of teacher duties that keeps getting ever longer).  

What can we who care deeply about gifted children do?  Personally, as I told Roya, I advocate structural changes - grouping gifted kids in dedicated classrooms, schools, courses. Yes, the projects even there need to be flexible, but that is different from developing curriculum for each learner.  Cluster grouping is also a possibility, if the schools are too small for dedicated classes or classrooms. 

Dedicated classrooms and special schools work mostly just like a regular school. There will always be a range of abilities in the classroom. Teachers can handle a range of abilities, up to a point - 1 or 2 grade levels above or below the nominal grade level. After that, it is much more difficult, unless the class size is VERY small.

Some schools follow continuous progress models.  Children are grouped for instruction, based on their current level of achievement in that instructional area.  One school I worked at had a math block and a reading block.  All of the math classes met at the same time and kids were placed where they were ready to learn.  Similarly with reading.  Another school did that for grammar and writing.  The drawback of these models is that the teacher loses track of the individual child.  In those schools, I sometimes felt that I missed my "own" kids. 

One other model that I have seen that seems to have potential was a Montessori school.  From an early age, the students were trained to work relatively independently on a set of tasks.  The level and complexity of these tasks varied, depending on the child.  I have subbed in Montessori classrooms that follow this model, but they were not dedicated gifted schools.  Though this model seems to have potential and the teachers in these classes were good, I still did not see curriculum or expectations that were beyond two years above the nominal grade level of the class.  This model has potential for use in a gifted school, in my opinion, but even in this setting, the teachers cannot be expected to accommodate a range of more than 4 or 5 grade levels.

There seems to be great future potential in various models of computerized instruction.  From flipped classrooms to online learning, to adaptive programming, to digital production, there are now more options in this direction than ever before.  There are still problems with these models, though.  Doing chemistry on the computer is NOT the same as doing chemistry in the lab.  Skyping with a group of students from around the world is not the same as trying to convince the people in your class that your idea is valid.  Even if computerized instruction were perfect and readily available everywhere, you still need relevant experiences, discussion and interaction.

So I am pleading with gifted advocates everywhere:  work for structural solutions, but don't put down regular classroom teachers if they can't individualize the curriculum for gifted students.  They DO care about kids, but they just can't do it all. 

Differentiation - It Isn't Enough for HG+ Kids

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If Teachers Worked Like Doctors

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

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

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

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

Teacher's Time

In the frequent debates about education, the long summer break that teachers have is often cited as evidence that they don't work as hard as other professionals. Teachers are, in general contracted for 180 days. Given 5 days a week, this amounts to 36 weeks. For the sake of generality, I will assume that other professionals typically get a total of 4 weeks of vacation. This leaves 12 weeks in excess of what most other professionals would expect. This extra 12 weeks is the reason that is often cited for paying teachers less. They can get a second job over the summer to augment their incomes. And, in fact, many teachers do.

When I lived in Alaska, I was surprised to find that there were many men teaching, even in the lower grades. Perhaps it is because they can find construction or tourism jobs in the summer fairly readily. Other summer jobs might include summer school or summer camp. With those latter two, the increase in income is not actually very large, and with jobs being scarce, the competition for summer positions is pretty high. So, while there may be potential for extra income, I wonder how many teachers are actually able to supplement their incomes with second jobs.

But the major concern I have about teacher time is how their time is allocated DURING the school day, when they are actually teaching. A typical school day might look like this: teacher is required to arrive 30 minutes before school starts (e.g., 8:00) Kids are allowed in the building 15 minutes before school begins, so teachers' jobs actually start then, as they are required to supervise. At 8:30, school officially starts. Teachers are on duty constantly unless their students have a "special" - music, PE, library, or counselor. Then comes lunch, which in the schools I was in was supervised by the teacher in the classroom, followed by recess - the supposedly "duty free" part of the day. Then come the afternoon classes, with dismissal at 3:00. Teachers are required to stay at least 30 minutes after the end of the school day. So, the official day is 7 1/2 hours, with 1/2 hour for lunch - very comparable to the official day when I worked for a brokerage: 9 to 5 with an hour for lunch.

There are a couple of problems with this time schedule, though. The actual supervision of children extends beyond the official times in MANY cases. Due to bus schedules, detentions and makeup work can often only be done during the teacher's "duty free" lunch time. And, the 30 minutes of planning time afforded by the "special" class is grossly inadequate for its purported task. If, in just ONE of the subjects/classes each day, the teacher gives an assignment that requires 1 minute to grade per student, a teacher with 25 students uses up virtually the entire planning time grading that one assignment. Given 5 or 6 subjects or classes and the teacher has to do the work "off the clock".

This completely ignores the actual purpose of planning time. It is true that with scripted lessons, ones where the teacher is told what to say and do for the whole lesson, there is less need for planning lessons. This is fine, until you decide you want teachers who actually use creativity and effort to plan interesting lessons. Or, say, you have 6 or 7 kids in the class who have IEPs and need individual plans. Or, maybe there are 3 or 4 gifted kids in the class who already know all of the material in the lessons. When is the teacher supposed to plan for them?

The problem is, there simply isn't enough time for the teacher to behave like a professional. Does your doctor spend all but 1 1/2 hours of the work day talking directly to patients? Does your lawyer spend that percentage of the work day talking directly to clients? In most cases, there is a lot of background work that goes into a professional's day - work, that does not include direct contact with their clients. We trust that the doctor has record-keeping, research, and administrative tasks to do, tasks which are in the service of their patients, but not done in their presence. The problem is, teachers need this, too.

You want to know why the teacher can't individualize the classes for the outlier kids - the ones who struggle and the ones who need harder work so that they can learn to struggle successfully - the teacher has no time.

A long time ago, I read a book about a school that was serious about supporting excellent teachers. The teachers taught kids for 1/2 of the school day and used the other half of the day for planning and grading. Teachers worked together in teams to develop creative lessons and often critiqued each other giving the same lesson to different classes, working to improve the questions asked, the procedures followed, the products developed. Personally, I would gladly give up the extra 12 weeks of summer to work in a school where teachers had adequate time to plan, develop and grade lessons.

And I haven't even begun discussing the use of technology. That for another time.

Intelligent Life in the Classroom by Karen Isaacson and Tamara Fisher

Parts of this book are interesting and parts of it I found annoying. The part that I find most annoying is that I didn't see any acknowledgement that teachers often do not have much choice in the material they present or the manner in which it is presented. For instance, the district I sub in has adopted curricula in all of the subject areas in the elementary grades. For reading and math, the adopted curricula include textbooks that have mostly scripted lessons. This past year, since the math program was new, teachers were urged to follow the program explicitly. That meant that the lesson was pretty much pre-planned and there was very little chance to deviate from it. In fact, the textbooks and teachers' manuals are so overwhelming that very few teachers were able to include all of the material they were supposed to cover - there was simply too much.

Now, I know this book is supposed to be about taking GT kids into account and believe me, I think that is super important, but how does the regular classroom teacher have time to do that? When the teachers are struggling to just get through the regular material, how do they have time or energy to do the extension activities or even, for that matter, the activities for English language learners or those for kids who need more support? When the book fails to take any of this into account, it seems completely unrealistic to me. Sure, it would be lovely to be able to chuck your whole lesson because one of your students was super interested in mold. But teachers have this thing called accountability and they can't do that very often. Yes, that is a fault of the system, but to present it as though the teachers have a choice in the matter is a bit unfair.

The part of the book that I found interesting was the description of the pullout classes. I ran pullout classes for 5 years and remember them fondly. I never had any particular child as outstanding as the girls described in this book, but we did some very interesting and worthwhile stuff. One of my favorites was dissecting old computers and then dissecting fetal pigs and comparing them as systems. I would love to do that kind of thing again.

This isn't a bad book - a bit condescending in places and, as described above, a bit unrealistic. But it might make a reasonable introduction to giftedness for some teachers. There are better books in terms of practicality, but this one is OK for motivation.