I think what would work for gifted kids would work for all kids --Every child deserves material in their zone of proximal development. By showing how every child could benefit from this individualized approach, and getting it implemented, we would gain popular support for individualized teaching. Once adopted on a large scale, all kids, including and most especially gifted kids, would benefit.
We need to think about the impediments that keep America from individualizing teaching. One impediment is the current version of NCLB, with its emphasis on annual yearly progress and measurement only on achieving grade-level proficiency, and acceptance of narrowly focused tests that allow schools to drill key test questions and drop social studies, music, art, and science to focus more on test prep.
One way to change this would be to make schools accountable for teaching one year's worth of appropriately-paced and appropriately leveled material, varying by child.
Perhaps we could start by having states replace their NCLB state tests that measure only proficiency in the grade level of the child being tested. From what I understand, a test like MAP can show a child's current achievement level, instead of just whether the child is proficient at grade level. The school could then place the child in the appropriate grade by subject area. At the end of the year, the school would be held accountable if the fourth grader doing 8th grade math is not ready for (at least) ninth grade math the following year. They could still also be evaluated on how many kids are proficient at grade level as well.
Right now, the tests only judge proficiency at grade level. My older child probably would have passed the fifth grade proficiency exam years ago, but instead, each year all he got to show was that he was proficient at first grade skills, proficient at 2nd grade skills, etc. As long as he showed as proficient, no one really cared that he'd learned next to nothing all year in class and that almost all his learning was done outside of school.
My younger child reads, but his pre-K teachers don't seem to know it. I don't think they're evaluating that in class, and I don't think they've ever been trained to check for anything beyond grade level. He hates going to pre-K, and I can imagine that everything other than playtime is torture for him. I can only imagine what next year will be like, when kindergarten, the first academic year in our state, begins to spend even more time on things he already knows.
My observation of local gifted classes is kids who tested well move in lock-step through a curriculum, at a slightly faster pace, with slightly more depth. It is still very frustrating to a PG child.
Another impediment to the individualized teaching approach is our traditional elementary school, which strictly segregates by age, requiring kids falling within the one-year age group to stay with each other all day, whether for reading, math, science or social studeies. We could be less strict about starting ages and we could evaluate kids for grade placement based on academic readiness. No one-time test, but guided evaluations from pre-school or pre-K teachers based on what we know about how gifted kids may manifest in class and how to tease out how ready a child is.
We need much more fluid grouping and regrouping throughout the elementary school day, across grade levels and changing up by curriculum segment. Imagine an elementary school where all math classes occurred at the same time, and kids changed rooms or tables to join group A, B, C, D... X, Y, Z, with other kids who were ready to learn the same things they were ready for. We need to have plans in place for kids to have access to their curriculum level even if it's at a middle school, high school, or college. It seems like we should be able to take greater advantage of internet, interactive classes. Perhaps DOE could fund them!
Once at middle school, kids should take readiness tests for placement in each course they take, instead of following lock-step through the curriculum.
Teachers and school leaders lack training on this method of teaching. States should mandate gifted education training and training on individualizing instruction for all teachers. Principals should get training on reading and understanding various testing measures, including measures of giftedness (so they could better understand a child's needs) and statistical skills that could be used to analyze all these NCLB tests. They did need training on how to re-organize their school days and staff to allow flexible appropriate grouping based on readiness, not age.
When America allows individualized education for all, gifted education won't be something different or special. It won't require hours of parent advocacy and fights with teachers and administrators. It won't cause teasing or jealousy from other kids or parents. It will just be the individualized education that a gifted kid gets.
Thank you, Jan, for talking about the issue and for all you have done to help highly gifted kids. I am so grateful!
bk1
mom to DYS 11
