Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums General Discussion Gifted teacher ideology sound check

When discussing acceleration and cross-grade grouping, a teacher I was speaking with made these points. I'll withhold my opinion so as not to bias your feedback. What do you think of the following assertions?

1. Streaming positive in math and foreign languages.

2. Enrichment preferable to acceleration in ELA, social sciences, and sciences. Argument in favour of non-acceleration in sciences: curriculum structured and cumulative.

3. Offering a 2+ year acceleration in core subjects (ELA, math, science) in a congregated gifted setting not beneficial to students.

I imagine you'll hear variations of what I'm about to say.

1. Not really. Streaming we tend to call it clustering or grouping here is not a substitute for acceleration in math when the material is already mastered and its difficult to do well. Basic arithmetic in particular has a limit on the amount of depth that can be done with it. Perhaps it works better in foreign languages. Although there the key to me is how effective immersion is being done.

2. Maybe depending on enrichment. For ELA a cohort for discussions etc. becomes increasingly important as you advance.

3. Strongly disagree. Self-contained classrooms are highly effective for the students because they narrow the range needed to teach and differentiate against.

1/ streaming does make things less painful but an increase in pace and depth should be part of it.
2/ Depends on the child I would think. My oldest is too sensitive to cope with fiction for older kids or even more intense fiction for his age.
3/ Common belief but seems to be based on research using kids who are near the center of the curve not at either end. They seem to think that if it is beneficial to work with kids a little more or less skilled than you that it must be more beneficial to work with those much more or less skilled. If one pill is good then 10 must do 10 times as good.

1. Streaming or grouping is appropriate but not sufficient. There needs to be a change in curriculum content and presentation.

2. Structured and cumulative curriculum lends itself to compaction which is a form of acceleration.

3. Garbage. Unless of course the students selected are not appropriate for such a curriculum.

The ideas held are common but it doesn't make them correct. " A Nation Deceived" provides many references as many here are aware.

1) Streaming is not a buzzword I've had thrown at me, so I'll pass on this one.

2) Actually, for social studies and science, I can't say I disagree there. At lower grade levels, these topics are covered superficially at best, and I see a lot of value in going deeper rather than faster.

For ELA? I'm pretty sure if you're going deeper, you're way beyond grade-level curriculum.

3) And this teacher's evidence is... what?? Because there's quite a bit of evidence in favor.

Overall, this teacher seems hostile to acceleration. And since acceleration is one of the simplest and most effective tools for meeting the needs of a gifted child, I don't think this teacher has a sufficient understanding of gifted children.

It would be like a music teacher who can't tell you the notes in C-major.

Thanks everyone for your input. These are my views:

1. Streaming within a cohort that is already appropriately accelerated on a subject by subject basis is ideal. Streaming is a fine-tuning adjustment, not a gross adjustment. Offer cross-grade grouping with a compacted curriculum in as many subjects as possible to allow for the greatest adaptability to individual needs across subjects. Gifted children (all children, really!) should be supported in developing in the ZPD.

2. Enrichment is inadequate, particularly where basic skills objectives have been met. In fields with a nonlinear pattern of progress across grades, there is a strong argument for compaction to expose students to breadth and depth. In more structured fields, acceleration isn't inconsistent with progressing through the appropriate foundational skills.

3. Ruf's work suggests HG+ children are capable of completing the entire elementary series curriculum in (IIRC) ~ 1 year. Preventing gifted students from accelerating to achieve their potential deprives them of valuable learning opportunities-- academic, meta cognitive, and socioemotional. These effects are best supported in an accelerated, congregated setting of true peers. For many gifted students, more than 2-3 years of subject acceleration will be required.

Ironically, this teacher is a graduate of a congregated gifted program, has children ID'd as gifted, and claims to have experience teaching gifted children. It is perplexing that someone who, ostensibly, should have a better knowledge of gifted best practices doesn't.

Specifically related to science instruction, research by Joyce Van Tassel-Baska suggests:

"Moreover, opportunities for earlier access to advanced content need to be available to gifted students in science. Cross and Coleman (1992) conducted a survey of gifted high school students, finding that their major complaint about science instruction was the frustration of being held back by the pace and content of courses. In a 6-year study of middle school age gifted learners taking biology, chemistry, or physics in a 3-week summer program, these younger learners outperformed high school students taking these courses for a full academic year (Lynch, 1992). Follow-up studies documented continued success in science for these students, suggesting a need for academically advanced students to start high school science level courses earlier and be able to master them in less time. Evidence also suggests that advanced study in instructionally grouped settings based on science aptitudes promotes more learning for all students (Hacker & Rowe, 1993).

Source: http://www.davidsongifted.org/db/Articles_id_10273.aspx

I agree in principle, but the thing is that elementary level science books all teach pretty much the same thing at every grade level. In much of what I've seen, the primary differences are that 1) the vocabulary words change and 2) each grade level presents more detail (hence the change in vocabulary terms). IMO, this structure argues in favor of acceleration. Grade-school science isn't structured like, for example, college-level chemistry, where you really must understand general chemistry in order to get through O chem.

I became aware of the structure of US K-6 science six or so years ago. At the time, DS14 was doing fourth grade science in a school where fifth and sixth graders were in the same room for science. He overheard their lessons, and he wanted to skip ahead to at least the fifth grade stuff because it was more detailed, and to him, more interesting. The teacher wouldn't allow it. She honestly believed that a student wouldn't understand the fifth grade stuff without having gone through the fourth grade book. She didn't have a background in science, and I think she didn't see that the 4th-, 5th-, and 6th-grade books were all teaching the same stuff at different levels of detail.

I realised last year that teachers are civil servants. If they had to actually believe in every academic theory they were forced to inplement over a 40 year career they would go crazy. Therefore what seems ignorance may be following instructions.