Teachers may be asked this question by people who are confrontive (as in "Aren't all kids gifted?" and "Isn't gifted education elitist?") or merely curious ("What is gifted education all about, and why do we need it?"). You as teacher may be challenged to defend gifted education in a time of budget cutbacks, when anything considered "nonessential" is at risk. Following are some reasons why we think gifted education is necessary-today, tomorrow, and always:
* Gifted kids need a place where they can be themselves. That can mean almost anything: brainy, impatient, show-offy, moody, obsessed with a particular interest, off in a mysterious direction. America has traditionally been a society that values equity. Often, that translates into favoring conformity and people who don't stand out from the crowd.
* Gifted kids need a place where they can feel safe and supported. Many high-achieving students actually hide or cover up their abilities to improve their chances of being accepted as "normal" or to win popularity with their age peers.
* Like all kids, gifted kids have the right to the best education for them. They need opportunities to learn at their own speed, opt out of work they already know and understand, study things that interest them, go beyond the basics, work with abstract concepts that require more than simple thinking, work with peers who share their interests and abilities, and participate in options that connect their learning to the "real world."
* By the time they reach their senior year of high school, gifted kids will have spent more than 12.000 hours in school. Shouldn't at least some of those hours be challenging, rewarding, stimulating, meaningful, and enjoyable?
And here more detailed reasons from the National Association for the Gifted Children:
1. Gifted learners must be given stimulating educational experiences appropriate to their level of ability if they are to realize their potential. Giftedness arises from an interaction between innate capabilities and en environment that challenges and stimulates to bring forth high levels of ability and talent. These challenges must be available throughout the individual's lifetime for high levels of actualization of ability and talent to result. According to research on the nature of intelligence and the brain, we either progress or we regress depending on our participation in stimulation appropriate to our level of development.
2. Each person has the right to learn and to be provided challenges for learning at the most appropriate level where growth proceeds most effectively. Our political and social system is based on democratic principles. The school as an extension of those principles must provide an equal educational opportunity for all children to develop to their fullest potential. This means allowing gifted students the opportunity to learn at their level of development. For truly equal opportunity, a variety of learning experiences must be available at many levels.
3. At present, only slightly over on-half of the possible gifted learners in the United States are reported to be receiving education appropriate to their needs. There is physical and psychological pain in being thwarted, discouraged, and diminished as a person. To have ability, to feel power you are never allowed to use, can become traumatic. Many researchers consider the gifted as the largest group of underachievers in education.
4. Traditional education currently does not sufficiently value bright minds. Gifted children often enter school having already developed many of their basic skills. Almost from the first day they sense isolation, as others consider them different. Schools are not sufficiently individualized or flexible to allow modification in structure and organization. Most schools seek to develop skills that allow participation in society, not the re-creation of that society.
5. When given the opportunity, gifted students can use their vast amount of knowledge to serve as a background for unlimited learning. When the needs of the gifted are considered and the educational program is designed to meet these needs, these students make significant gains in achievement, and their sense of competence and well-being is enhanced.
6. Providing for our finest minds allows both individual and societal needs to be met. Contributions to society in all areas of human endeavor come in over-weighted proportions from this population of individuals. Society needs the gifted adult to play a far more demanding and innovate role than that required of the more typical learner. We need integrated, highly functioning persons to carry out those tasks that will lead all of us to a satisfying, fulfilling future.
"When Gifted Kids Don't have all the Answers" by Jim Delisle, Ph.D. & Judy Galbraith, M.A.
Tips for making friends
- Reach out. Don't always wait for someone else to make the first move. A simple "hi" and a smile go a long way. It may sound corny, but you'll be amazed at the response you'll receive when you extend a friendly greeting.
- Get involved. Join clubs that interest you; take special classes inside or outside of school. Seek out neighbourhood and community organizations and other opportunities to give service to others.
- Let people know that you're interested in them. Don't just talk about yourself; ask questions about them and their interests. Make this a habit and you'll have mastered the art of conversation. It's amazing how many people haven't yet grasped this basic social skill.
- Be a good listener. This mean looking at people while they're talking to you and genuinely paying attention to what they're saying. (A long litany of "uhhuhs" is a dead giveaway that your mind is somewhere else.)
- Risk telling people about yourself. When it feels right, let your interest and talents be known. For example, if you love science fiction and you'd like to know others who feel the same way, spread the word. If you're an expert on the history of science fiction, you might want to share your knowledge. BUT...
- Dont' be a show-off. Not everyone you meet will share your interests and abilities. (On the other hand, you shouldn't have to hide them-which you won't, once yu find people who like and appreciate you)
- Be honest. Tell the truth about yourself and your convictions. When asked for your opinion, be sincere. Friends appreciate forthrightness in each other. BUT...
- When necessary, temper your honestly with diplomacy. The truth doesn't have to hurt. It's better to say "Your new haircut is interesting" that to exclaim "You actually paid money for THAT?. There are times when frankness is anapproriate and unneccessary.
- Don't just use your friends as sounding boards for your problems and complaints. Include them in the good times, too.
- Do your share of the work. That's right, work. Any relationship takes effort. Don't always depend on your friends to make the plans and carry the weight.
- Be accepting. Not all of your friends have to think and act like you do. (Wouldn't it be boring if they did?)
- Learn to recognize the so-called friends you can do without. Some gifted kids get so lonely that they put up with anyone - including friends who aren't really friends at all. Follow tips 1-11 and this shouldn't happen to you.
When Gifted Kids don't have all the answers, by Jim Delisle & Judy Galbraith
Neglecting the high Achiever
Special report for Educational Leadership, Oct/08 edition, by Amy M. Azzam
What does it mean when 60 percent of teachers name struggling students as their top priority and 81 percent indicate that struggling students are the most likely to get one-on-one help from teachers-when 86 percent of those same teachers surveyed say that public schools should focus equally on all students, regardless of their backgrounds or achievements levels? According to a new report, it means that there's some confusion over the definition of equity in U.S. Schools, particularly when it comes to high-achieving students.
A recent two-part report published by the Thomas B. Fordham Institute-High Achieving Students in the Era of NCLB- looks at issues related to the best and brightest in our schools. The first study examines achievement trends for high-achieving students; the second looks at teachers' views on how schools are serving high achievers. Neither study tries to establish a casual link between No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and the performance of high-achieving students.
“Part 1: An Analysis of NAEP Data,” authored by Brookings scholar Tom Loveless, presents two major findings:
Although the United States' lowest-achieving students made rapid gains from 2000 to 2007, the performance of top students was “languid.” The bottom 10 percent of students have shown solid progress in 4th grade reading and math and 8th grade math since 2000, but the top 10 percent have minimal gains.
This pattern of stronger progress for low achievers rather that for high achievers is associated with the introduction of accountability systems in general-and not with NCLB in particular. National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) data from the 1990s show that states that adopted similar testing and accountability programs saw similar patterns. According to the report, this is because “accountability systems, like NCLB, put pressure on schools to get students over a fairly low bar” (p.10).
“Part 2: Results from a National Teacher Survey.” authored by Steve Farkas and Ann Duffet, is based on a national random sample of 900 3rd-12th grade public school teachers. Key findings include the following:
Sixty percent of teachers indicate that struggling students –not high achievers- are their top priority. Only 23 percent indicated that “academically advanced” students are a top priority.
Eighty-one percent of teachers named “struggling students” as those most likely to get one-on-one attention from teachers. Only 5 percent named “advanced students” as getting that attention.
In a forced-choice question, only 11 percent of teachers said that public schools should focus on raising the achievement of disadvantaged students who are struggling academically, whereas 86 percent said schools should focus equally on all students, regardless of their backgrounds or achievement levels. According to Chester E. Finn Jr. and Michael J. Petrilli, in their executive summary of the report, this is an “overwhelming repudiation of one of NCLB's core tenets” (p. 12). They note that one reason the achievement of top students hasn't tumbled in recent years is that “teachers' personal views have 'mediated' the federal law's intentions and incentives” (p. 12).
Forty percent of teachers said that programs for high-achieving students are “too often watered down and lacking in rigor” (p.10).
Low-income, black, and Hispanic high achievers (on the 2005 8th grades NAEP in math) were more likely that low achievers to be taught by experienced teachers.
Commenting on what they call the overall “benign neglect” of high-achieving students, Finn and Petrilli note that “if gains by low achievers are our only measure of success, America faces big challenges in the years to come” (p.12).
For a full copy of High-Achieving Students in the Era of NCLB, go to www.fordhamfoundation.org/publications/index.cfm
Smart, Black, and Losing Ground
Research has shown that black-white achievement gaps grow most noticeably during the elementary school years. But according to a recent report out of Stanford, they are growing fastest among the most able black and white students.
The report relies on data from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study: Kindergarten Cohort, a nationally representative sample of kindergartners who were assessed in reading, mathematics, and general knowledge/science skills at six time points during the years 1998-2004. The report analyzed reading and mathematics scores for approximately 7.000 elementary students. There are the two key findings:
Among students entering kindergarten with the same math and reading skills, black students fall well behind their white peers by 5th grade. The 5th grade scores of black students who enter school with average math and reading skills are one-half a standard deviation below those of their white peers and place at the 20-25th percentile of the white distribution.
The black-white gap in both math and reading appears to grow the most quickly among students who enter kindergarten with above-average math and reading skills. The gap grows twice as quickly for students who begin school with scores one standard deviation above the mean as for those who begin one standard deviation below the mean.
The study attributes this pattern to several factors. In addition to socio-economic realities that may deprive students of valuable resources, high-achieving black students may be exposed to less rigorous curriculums, attend schools with fewer resources, and have teachers who expect less of them academically than they expect of similarly high-achieving white students.
Differential Growth in the Black-White Achievement Gap During Elementary School Among Initially High- and Low- Scoring Students, by Sean F. Reardon, is available at www.stanford.edu/group/irepp/cgi-bin/joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=27&Itemid=43
What does it mean when 60 percent of teachers name struggling students as their top priority and 81 percent indicate that struggling students are the most likely to get one-on-one help from teachers-when 86 percent of those same teachers surveyed say that public schools should focus equally on all students, regardless of their backgrounds or achievements levels? According to a new report, it means that there's some confusion over the definition of equity in U.S. Schools, particularly when it comes to high-achieving students.
A recent two-part report published by the Thomas B. Fordham Institute-High Achieving Students in the Era of NCLB- looks at issues related to the best and brightest in our schools. The first study examines achievement trends for high-achieving students; the second looks at teachers' views on how schools are serving high achievers. Neither study tries to establish a casual link between No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and the performance of high-achieving students.
“Part 1: An Analysis of NAEP Data,” authored by Brookings scholar Tom Loveless, presents two major findings:
Although the United States' lowest-achieving students made rapid gains from 2000 to 2007, the performance of top students was “languid.” The bottom 10 percent of students have shown solid progress in 4th grade reading and math and 8th grade math since 2000, but the top 10 percent have minimal gains.
This pattern of stronger progress for low achievers rather that for high achievers is associated with the introduction of accountability systems in general-and not with NCLB in particular. National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) data from the 1990s show that states that adopted similar testing and accountability programs saw similar patterns. According to the report, this is because “accountability systems, like NCLB, put pressure on schools to get students over a fairly low bar” (p.10).
“Part 2: Results from a National Teacher Survey.” authored by Steve Farkas and Ann Duffet, is based on a national random sample of 900 3rd-12th grade public school teachers. Key findings include the following:
Sixty percent of teachers indicate that struggling students –not high achievers- are their top priority. Only 23 percent indicated that “academically advanced” students are a top priority.
Eighty-one percent of teachers named “struggling students” as those most likely to get one-on-one attention from teachers. Only 5 percent named “advanced students” as getting that attention.
In a forced-choice question, only 11 percent of teachers said that public schools should focus on raising the achievement of disadvantaged students who are struggling academically, whereas 86 percent said schools should focus equally on all students, regardless of their backgrounds or achievement levels. According to Chester E. Finn Jr. and Michael J. Petrilli, in their executive summary of the report, this is an “overwhelming repudiation of one of NCLB's core tenets” (p. 12). They note that one reason the achievement of top students hasn't tumbled in recent years is that “teachers' personal views have 'mediated' the federal law's intentions and incentives” (p. 12).
Forty percent of teachers said that programs for high-achieving students are “too often watered down and lacking in rigor” (p.10).
Low-income, black, and Hispanic high achievers (on the 2005 8th grades NAEP in math) were more likely that low achievers to be taught by experienced teachers.
Commenting on what they call the overall “benign neglect” of high-achieving students, Finn and Petrilli note that “if gains by low achievers are our only measure of success, America faces big challenges in the years to come” (p.12).
For a full copy of High-Achieving Students in the Era of NCLB, go to www.fordhamfoundation.org/publications/index.cfm
Smart, Black, and Losing Ground
Research has shown that black-white achievement gaps grow most noticeably during the elementary school years. But according to a recent report out of Stanford, they are growing fastest among the most able black and white students.
The report relies on data from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study: Kindergarten Cohort, a nationally representative sample of kindergartners who were assessed in reading, mathematics, and general knowledge/science skills at six time points during the years 1998-2004. The report analyzed reading and mathematics scores for approximately 7.000 elementary students. There are the two key findings:
Among students entering kindergarten with the same math and reading skills, black students fall well behind their white peers by 5th grade. The 5th grade scores of black students who enter school with average math and reading skills are one-half a standard deviation below those of their white peers and place at the 20-25th percentile of the white distribution.
The black-white gap in both math and reading appears to grow the most quickly among students who enter kindergarten with above-average math and reading skills. The gap grows twice as quickly for students who begin school with scores one standard deviation above the mean as for those who begin one standard deviation below the mean.
The study attributes this pattern to several factors. In addition to socio-economic realities that may deprive students of valuable resources, high-achieving black students may be exposed to less rigorous curriculums, attend schools with fewer resources, and have teachers who expect less of them academically than they expect of similarly high-achieving white students.
Differential Growth in the Black-White Achievement Gap During Elementary School Among Initially High- and Low- Scoring Students, by Sean F. Reardon, is available at www.stanford.edu/group/irepp/cgi-bin/joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=27&Itemid=43
SENG ANNOUNCEMENT
RUSD GATE Parents and teachers are invited to a:90 minutes Webinar Presentation by James T. Webb, PhD
Common Misdiagnoses and Dual Diagnoses of Gifted Children and Adults: What parents, Educators and Psychologists Need to Know.
Date: November 20, 2008
Time: 5:30 pm.
Location: Highland Grove Elementary School, 7700 Orange Street, Highland, 92346
Because they lack training, mental health professionals are misdiagnosing gifted and talented children and adults as having mental disorders. The characteristics of gifted/talented children and adults -particularly if not understood at school, home or work -often are mistaken for significant behavior or emotional problems that can be misdiagnosed as Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, Oppositional Defiant Disorder, Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder, Conduct Disorder, or Bi-Polar Disorder... Parents and educators, therefore, must become more informed about these issues.
However, for other children and adults, their giftedness is related, but often overlooked, for diagnoses that are accurate such as Existential Depression, Bi-Polar, Obsessive-Compulsive Personality Disorder, Sleep Disorders or Multiple Personality Disorder. That is, these children and adults do indeed have dual diagnoses – giftedness and some disorder. It is important that the aspects related to giftedness not be overlooked or misunderstood by professionals.
This session provides information to help parents, educators, and health care professionals understand how they can differentiate gifted behaviors from behavioral pathology. Dr. Webb will describe commonalities and contrasts between the characteristics of gifted children and adults and the behaviors described in the DSM-IV that are used by mental health professionals to make differential diagnoses. In addition, Dr. Webb will discuss dual diagnoses and how treatment approaches with gifted children and adults often need to be modified.
-----------------------------------
Dr. James T. Webb founded SENG in 1981, and is the lead author of award winning books including Misdiagnosis and Dual Diagnoses of Gifted Children and Adults, Guiding the Gifted Child, A Parent's Guide to Gifted Children, Grandparent's Guide to Gifted Children, and Gifted Parent Groups: The SENG Model. He was previously President of the American Association for Gifted Children, on the Board of directors for the National Association for Gifted Children, President of the Ohio Psychological Association, and a member of the Council of Representatives of the American Psychological Association. Dr. Webb was recognized as one of the most 25 influential psychologists in a national survey published in Gifted Child Today.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
