Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums THINKING BIG About Gifted Education NAGC's "bold step"

Have any of you been following the discussion around the NAGC's proposed new focus on talent development?

I am very concerned that the NAGC will no longer be representing the interests of gifted students with this new focus and definition of giftedness.

What are your thoughts?

http://newsmanager.commpartners.com/nagc/issues/2011-11-15.html#0


http://www.psychologicalscience.org...ing-giftedness-and-gifted-education.html

White paper on the topic:


http://psi.sagepub.com/content/12/1/3.full.pdf+html

the sage article has some interesting lines in the abstract. I havent read the article yet. it looks pretty dense and will take me a while that i dont have right now.

"In spite of concerns for the future of innovation
in the United States, the education research and policy
communities have been generally resistant to addressing academic
giftedness in research, policy, and practice. The resistance
is derived from the assumption that academically gifted
children will be successful no matter what educational environment they are placed in, and because their families are
believed to be more highly educated and hold above-average
access to human capital wealth. These arguments run counter
to psychological science indicating the need for all students to
be challenged in their schoolwork and that effort and appropriate
educational programing, training and support are
required to develop a student�s talents and abilities. In fact high-ability students in the United States are not faring well on
international comparisons. The scores of advanced students in
the United States with at least one college-educated parent
were lower than the scores of students in 16 other developed
countries regardless of parental education level."

some of this i have seen expressed on this board. gifted kids dont just all turn out ok without proper interventions. and we are falling behind in supporting our brightest. it think they are talking about academic talent development and coming up with better ways to define gifted and then how to create environments in which the gifted and talented can excell.

cathy can you say more about what your concerns are? On first perusal this sounds good to me. i am afraid i am missing something.

I'm not Cathy, but when I first saw something about this change in NAGC's approach, my concern was that they are changing their definition of giftedness to fit in more with the way many schools define gifted: not necessarily high IQ, high ability, different brain wiring, etc. but more average to bright kids who work hard and achieve highly.

First of all, I think the NAGC is trying to broaden its appeal by promoting talent development for all instead of supporting gifted students in particular. I have nothing against talent development per se, but I see that as a radical change in the NAGC's mission, and I'm afraid that in promoting this achievement focus, gifted kids (especially 2e kids) will fall through the cracks unless they are high achievers.

I don't think the achievement focus is healthy... I don't think the goal of gifted education should be "eminence". In this new paradigm, the goals are focused on the "talents" not the kids who manifest them. How many gifted kids will become eminent? A small percentage. If we make that the goal, that will mean that most of them will have failed to meet that goal. Instead of trying to support gifted kids as whole people, NAGC wants to focus on them as "high-potential" learners. Those who don't produce up to that "potential" will not be considered gifted. The achievement focus places an unfair burden of expectations on gifted kids--which I think they struggle under enough already!

I encourage people to send feedback to the NAGC president. She said in her post:


http://parentingforhighpotential.com/2011/11/18/from-the-nagc-president-paula-olszewski-kubilius/

Perhaps you would get more support if you explain your position more, because I think it is a good thing. Just because a kid is gifted, doesn't mean he should all kinds of resources if he doesn't have any motivation. If a child with a lower IQ is more motivated, willing to do the work, why not provide them with opportunities and resources? They could be the one that attains great things for this country.

Just because you have a really high IQ means you will achieve anything. You might just be lazy for a variety of reasons.

And foremost among the reasons for a gifted student to appear or become lazy is because the material is unchallenging and unrewarding. But it's so much easier to blame the child when the school's one-size-fits-all solution doesn't fit.

Isn't that why we're all here?

I completely agree. My child was the typical gifted underachiever. He shut down in school after 2 years of begging me and his teachers for something more. We finally had someone take his PG-level IQ seriously, despite the lack of work to show for it (we had switched schools). He was grade-skipped and subject accelerated 3+ years on top of the skip.

Within 2 weeks he went from doing *nothing* to being one the top workers in his class. Fast forward a year later and he is thriving: organized, happy, learning a ton, and growing socially as well. He has gained confidence as well.

BTW, as long as we had stayed in the public school, he would not have been eligible for any kind of acceleration, and probably not even a gifted pull-out, because he was not a high achiever and there were plenty of those.

Now, who knows what he will do with his life -- but at least he's got a chance to do something -- where before it seemed like he was on a road to nowhere. He used to come home crying. Now he comes home smiling.

I would be sad if even the gifted organizations, who gave us so much support along the way, came to withdraw their support from children like mine. I hope that is not the direction that NAGC is headed.

I actually blame the parents....

When I first joined this forum, all I wanted was for my kid to get a spot at Hunter. Then she told them in the interview she didn't want to go there and I felt suckerpunched for about 2 days.

I am writing this for newcomers. And then trying for the accelerated gifted school but being held up by lottery numbers that wouldn't get her in. And all the time needing to compensate by having her in programs like the science one at the Museum of Natural History or doing CTY.

I know, that I would have become more complacent if she had gotten into Hunter or Anderson. And just like those Terman kids, she probably never get that "eminence" since it has eluded Hunter kids for 30+ years. It is the kid that is excluded, that struggles against the odds that gets the Nobel prize. The Terman rejects are the ones with eminence.

And that is why I play devil's advocate. I do have to supplement. My kid is whizzing in the math. Hunter would have kept her at one year ahead. I teach her more about options and working for them, much more than if I thought her "gifted" school was taking care of things.

I am of the strong belief that the IQ at 5 is not the IQ at 12 or 18. And if you only test once and you don't offer the options for more kids, then you leave a lot behind that may amaze us.

Sonia Sotomayor only became fluent in English at 9, was living in the projects, didn't attend gifted programs but her mother bought her an encyclopedia. She never got picked for gifted programs. Now Elena Kagan did attend Hunter (her mother worked there) and is the first, as I understand, to achieve eminence from a Hunter elementary alumni. Who got there first?

I know someone who is applying to MIT and was a little surprised since I knew she wasn't a science person. MIT has the top undergrad business program in the country. First on the admissions requirements, write about something you have done. A lot of IQ kids going through gifted programs may have nothing to say but high grades. At least that is what Yale admissions is saying about applicants these days.

I'd agree with you statement that IQ scores at five are likely to change over time. I don't think that IQ is set in stone nor do I think that it is a precise or perfect measurement of who is gifted. I do think that it is probably the best measure we have right now, though, b/c it doesn't just look for convergent fast answers the way multiple choice group tests do. IQ tests are also less subject to hothousing of scores b/c the actual questions are a bit better protected than are group test questions which, as I've mentioned, are often taught to by some teachers and some parents and given repeatedly until the requisite score are obtained (at least in some of my local schools).

That said, I disagree with the notion that what Yale admissions is seeing is large numbers of truly gifted/high IQ kids who have nothing to offer but high grades. I think that what they are seeing is exactly what I fear NAGC is now going to cater to: high achieving, in the box thinking, not truly gifted kids who are called gifted, tracked into GT programming, and come out of it with nothing to offer but high grades and convergent thoughts. That's pretty much what the preponderance of the kids in our local GT programs look like already and it isn't where I think GT needs to stray further.

I am not seeking narrowing the definition of gifted b/c I want to be elitist but b/c, the further a child strays from the norm, the more his needs are less likely to be met in a grouping that includes 10, 15, 20% or more of the population. Honestly, in programs that include numbers like this, what I've seen is that probably 40-50% of the population could easily be in this "gifted" grouping with appropriate circumstances. It doesn't take above average intelligence; what it takes is a combo of average or slightly above intelligence, parental involvement, and motivation on the behalf of the teachers and the students.

Gifted isn't a special need when you define it this way and that makes it all that much more elitist b/c it is subject to parental pride, pressure, and arrogance moreso than a qualitative difference in wiring that had little to do with what a great parent I am and how much better my child is.

Harvard and Yale applicants are overwhelmingly the children of affluent helicopter parents, regardless of actual intellectual levels. A wealthy parent can invest a lot of hours and dollars in the "right" schools at all levels, private tutors, etc. Then they can bully school officials into making unnecessary accommodations, changing grades, etc. All of this can force an ungifted child through a gifted education.

And, even for the truly gifted among this population, the workload and pressure are ridiculous, leaving children little or no experience in dealing with problems themselves, or for outside activities.

Contact the admissions departments for NYU or San Diego State, and I would expect them to have a different perspective on gifted children.

Quote:

This debate can be formulated in terms of at least two rival views of what gifted education should lead to: self-actualization versus eminence....
has focused on developing the cognitive abilities of children; from her point of view, gifted education should be concerned with �the growth of the individual as well as his/her responsi- ble membership in the world community� (p. 18). These ideas are reflected in the mission and philosophy of the school (see www.roeper.org/) Annamarie Roeper and her husband founded. The Roepers� primary concern about talent develop-
ment was not about contributions to science, philosophy, art; as Annamarie Roeper put it,
or
Is gifted education just effective teaching or does it involve strategies that work only for gifted learners.

These classes are not accelerated in that they are not being taught at the level of sophistication at which they would be offered in high school or college, although enrich- ment can lead to accelerated placement. �((about gifted enrichment pull-outs)).�


Response:
I'm not trying to say not to provide support services for 2e kids or not to try to help those kids who's parents won't. �I am saying there seems to be a lot of parents fighting for education for very trainable, highly able kids who are being told that the school "just can't do that" when all they want is their kids to be taught and not hindered or held back. �Yes, I'm still pouting that my kid couldn't enroll early in pre-k this year. �:p

In other words, sure, gifted education is just effective teaching (or great parenting!)�sarcasm that would work for anybody, but only if you let everyone progress at different rates. �Meanwhile why begrudge the tailor made gifted enrichment pull-outs that the other kids could join in except that there's only so much time in the day and they need remedy in basic skills. �What else should the advanced kids do with their whole school day, tutor other kids? �Look for trouble? �Read and doodle? �I'm going to send homework to school with my son and tell him I'll grade it when he gets home. �No, this isn't for eminence, fame, or fortune. �It's because everybody has decided that childhood is when you should get yer book lernin'. � So, there's a third option. �It's not self/actualization or eminence. �It's normalcy. �It's what the other kids get is a sufficient education during their childhood, so why shouldn't mine? �How does everybody call that greedy? �Why should a bright kid get�MORE education Than EVERybody else? Because anyone who wants more should have it. �What a stupid thing to fight over. �Mom! �He's hogging the schoolwork!

�And I like the prosaic musings about creativity vs. expertise p.14.

Quote:
Simonton (2000a) distinguished between the expertise necessary to give consistently similar, outstanding technical performances and the creativity necessary to generate high-quality, original work. �Mere repetition of previous work is necessarily dis- qualified as creative� (Simonton, 2000a, p. 286) even though the work may be outstanding or meet world-class standards in some fields. Alternatively, having deep expertise does not limit one to facile, stereotypical, and superficial approaches to complex problems that ultimately thwart creativity. Flexible thinking, or the ability to apply information from a different area to a new problem when needed, may be the key to cre- ative productivity in general and to being creative in multiple domains (Plucker & Beghetto, 2004). It is also possible that technical precision, skill automaticity, and large stores of knowledge are more important at certain stages of talent devel- opment than at others (Dai, 2010).

Good quote.

Kuhn said:


I would add this from a noted Aspie:



Read the whole thing:

http://www.goalsys.com/books/documents/DESTRUCTION_AND_CREATION.pdf

Someone stuck inside a given mental model which was spoon-fed and cemented with endless repetition will not be capable of abandoning one mental model for a new one they develop. During times of little change this person will do fine, but during times of rapid change or difficulty, they will fail.

Those who are Eminent are of the latter. They cope with disorder and bring disorder, but they also resolve disorder.

So, then, beginning with the end goal in mind, how do you create this vision in the mind of a child and then sustain it to adulthood? Its one thing to say what it is, but another to speak to what should be.

There are at least two reasons bright kids should get more education:
(1) They are are more educable. As Charles Murray discusses in "Real Education", it probably takes an IQ of 115 to really study at the college level. If true, that means about 5/6 of the population is not college-educable, although of course colleges can reduce standards and pass out diplomas -- which they have done.

I'd guess that an IQ of 100 is needed to produce a high school graduate who can (for example) master Algebra II and write a persuasive essay citing sources. Lots of people don't belong in high school, but they are stamped as "drop-outs" if they don't do their time.

(2) Smart people tend to enjoy education more. People like what they are good at.

The most talented tennis players should get more and better tennis coaching, the most talented pianists the most piano instruction, and the most intelligent the most academic instruction from the brightest teachers.

I also disagree that just because you have an high IQ, you are an out of the box thinker. More people, brilliant or not, are in the herd not running ahead of the herd, or taking the path less taken.

I already have problems with my kids being so far out of the box, I don't need the box to get bigger, that's my 2 cents. I don't disagree with talent development, but I think kids who's talents like in music or athletics or easily measurable academics get plenty of support. And the kids at the other end get their needs supported.

I just had the Education Specialist (Resource, OT/Speech, etc) person tell me today that it is STILL not likely we can get OT for Butter, even WITH the independent psychologists testing and reccomendation) because she already tests above grade level. But, at the same time, at the old school they were saying it was all her attitude with writing and unwilling to consider another cause.

I don't need a position that is more inclusive (not that I have a problem with that, but it should be a different group), I need one that looks more at my child as an individual.

Quote you:
�I think kids who's talents like in music or athletics or easily measurable academics get plenty of support. And the kids at the other end get their needs supported.

Quote me:
What else should the advanced kids do with their whole school day, tutor other kids? �Look for trouble? �Read and doodle? �I'm going to send homework to school with my son and tell him I'll grade it when he gets home.

So obviously I disagree. �I offered to Get the easily measurable academics proof of talent (ie IQ testing) and was told by the GT person that the public school would probably never be able meet the needs of a kid who's too talented. �I'm sure they're wrong because what does my kid really need anyway? �But "they" (globally) �most certainly do not provide plenty of support to kids who are gifted in �easily measured academics. �Please don't feel attacked. �I'm not being argumentative. �

I do like how this article condensed and distilled all the widely circulated research and most current popular beliefs about gifted issues. �I think they did narrow it down to this:
This debate can be formulated in terms of at least two rival views of what gifted education should lead to: self-actualization versus eminence....

I think personally I would like to see an effort made to give gifted individuals and gifted families more of a free reign self-determined IEP, but, within the system. � I see why they don't. �Unchallenged academically gifted kids are more likely to lift the averages, but those that don't tend to leave the system. �Allowing gifted familys to try their own things might cause failures among the ones who sparkle up the graded curve. �Rumor has it they'd mess up the budget by costing local schools some funding if they fail too. �

So, Cathy A. �I agree that the eminence focus minimizes the gifted child's personhood. �But I also think it's a bunch of words and wonder how the semantics will play out in real world policies. �

Anyway, it seems to me that the article was trying to plant the seeds of public opinion that we need to get policies in place that allow academically talented kids to receive a free and appropriate education in public schools. �In other words �they called it developing talent into eminence so that the public would not be scared and hesitant to offer a drastically different education to a "more child" (reference a blogger that pointed out that intense gifted kids are normal, they're just more of everything normal. �They often lack moderation in everything by nature.) �The public doesn't understand that an academically talented kid wants more on a different scale. �At the same time, they're normal kids. �They need parenting and teaching and coaching and pushing and guiding.

La Tex-I don't feel attacked, not at all...actually, maybe "easily measurable academics" wasn't accurate. What I mean there is the +1SD, hardworking, easy going, likeable kid. The one who DOES shine a little more than the "average" and DOES seem to benefit from some enrichment (which is really what the equivalent of our GATE programs are). My kid is not officially 2e, she might not be, but she has some issues that go beyond what I have seen as the public opinion idea of what a gifted kid is. She doesn't fit what is already offered...and even at our new home study program, I feel like I'm getting some push back, but that's OT...she is absolutely NOT a work producer, so, therefore difficult to measure (at least as far as teacher and report card go). And if we were in one of those places where kids are DISqualified from GT program due to "bad attitudes", we would be THAT family. Even though its obvious, from testing the district does, that she would NEED a program like that. My concern is that this change of focus will mean that more PG and 2e kids get excluded from the "talent development". Most GT programs don't seem to be worth much to those kids. I fear that educators and administrators will be even MORE likely to exclude the difficult kids in favor of the "better" ones...

Really, it's fine...we haven't found "our place" yet, so it's not like I was invested in what they were doing anyway. I already understand that most people don't "get" my kid...I'm not even fully into the advocacy for her phase...

I also don't give a hoot about eminence. I just finished reading "Cradles of Eminence". It was great and I feel better about my kid, but I don't NEED that for her. What I want for my DD is for her to be HAPPY, to feel good about herself and satisfied with her life. I don't want her to be a person who has to put her passions aside during the week for a job she hates...I guess that puts me in the self actualization camp? And my kid would have NEVER done any extra work, she wasn't even doing what the teacher asked. But it wouldn't have mattered because the teacher wouldn't even just let her read under her desk, so DD wound up really acting out at times...our last school was like ANTI diferentiation, no matter what baloney they put on their website...

Update: From the NAGC

http://www.nagc.org/index.aspx?id=8990

I'm not sure what's going on. I think they're backpedalling!

More from Paula O-K. http://www.nagc.org/index.aspx?id=8996

From that link:

"For example, for the last 12 years, I have been running a program called Project Excite whose goal is to prepare talented under-represented minority students to qualify for honors classes in math and science when they enter high school. We identify children with potential by virtue of the fact that they are the highest scoring students in their schools on tests such the Naglieri and the ITBS in the third grade. However, none of these students would have been identified for a traditional gifted program that used high scores on ability or achievement tests for selection. At this point in their lives, the students have potential, but that is not demonstrated in high test scores or high achievement. Through involvement in enrichment and accelerated gifted programs over the course of a few years, most qualify for advanced course placement in grade nine (into honors classes) and most have completed one or two years of high school math by grade 9."

<end of excerpt>

Note that the program is only for "minority" children (I bet that does not include Asians) who are only being compared to other children in their schools. A similar effort is NOT made to prepare white children with the same test scores for advanced coursework in high school. Why?

Gifted programs, and educational programs in general, should serve students based on their abilities and interests, not race. The big political problem plaguing gifted programs is that whites and Asians score well above blacks and Hispanics on IQ and achievement tests on average, so the former two groups will be heavily "over-represented" if students are chosen based on race-neutral , academic criteria. The NAGC leadership does not have the guts and the intellectual honesty to state this openly.

Sorry to drag up this old thread, but I was just re-reading this article and thought that it was very relevant to this conversation: http://www.georgeparkyncentre.org/documents/high-achievers-pdf.pdf

I think that what we are talking about is two different groups of kids as Ms. Cathcart mentions in this article. A focus on talent development serves the kids who function within the box that is the current school system much better than it does the square pegs, IMHO. I know that not all gifted kids are square pegs. My oldest functions fairly well within school with some significant frustrations regarding the level of work of the other students, but I suspect that she'd be functioning much less well were she not nearly two year younger than most of her grade mates. None the less, she can do it.

I am particularly sensitive to focus on functioning highly within the box, though, b/c my 2e kid doesn't do well with that regardless of the amount of acceleration. She's devising new formulas during math rather than focusing on learning the ones that exist, for example. She just can't bring herself to engage and she is, thus, shut out using a talent development approach.