Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums Identification, Testing & Assessment Hothousing vs IQ

We now live in a country outside of America where children attend day school then go to evening and weekend classes as well. There are 4th graders at the school who are doing middle school math, and this is not unusual. These kids are pushed and pushed and pushed. I am in a position where I can help create a gifted program (I will add I am not a teacher, but am in the interesting situation of being one of the few in the city with any experience in gifted education), but it will be tough as the idea of IQ testing or using the Woodcock Johnson achievement testing is unheard of. The school does use MAP testing, and the teachers are open to using above level assessments to see student's academic situation. We obviously should be meeting kids where they are, but how can you figure out the truly gifted vs. hot housed with limited resources (plus cultural lack of awareness of giftedness)?

Gifted education should not be a "reward" for a certain test score. It should be speaking to a need that some students have for more depth, complexity, nuance, and so forth as well as a faster pace. And in order for the program to be ethically defensible, this need should *not* be present in students not identified for the program.

So instead of focusing initially on identification, you should decide what sort of program you can and want to offer. Then you design your identification plan so that it is able to select those students who will be able to benefit from the program.

As an aside, I have taught both gifted and non-gifted (though very bright) students algebra in a one-on-one setting, and one of the differences I notice is that the gifted ones need far less practice. This seems to be because the gifted ones see the underlying simplicity of whatever it is they are studying, whereas the non-gifted ones see it as a bunch of disconnected elements to be memorized. So, a 4th grader who is doing middle school math easily (so, being taught but not requiring an inordinate amount of practice) is more likely to be gifted than one who requires lots of after school time with rote practice to achieve the same thing.

I'm not an expert or even someone who works in the field, but I like the Renzuli three ring conception of gifteness. It seems like it provides an understandable justification for the distinction between being a high-achieving student and a gifted student.

A Practical System for Identifying Gifted and Talented Students

It also seems like a good model for an environment where the majority of the students are high achievers or there are parents who want to treat a gifted program as a status symbol.

I think that is what is happening already. We have very limited resources time-wise so our pool of children who receive services will be small. We will have to be imaginative with how we use what we have. I am excited that we can begin to focus on these kids. We serve many moderately bright kids; I want to bring hope to the kids who are beyond that (after seeing how excruciating it was/is for my kid I want to help others).

Sure. We understand that here on this forum. I don't advertise that my DD rarely studies, is grade skipped, and still gets all A's when I know too many children who are surviving on little sleep and stressed, because they spend all their time in school and up late doing hours of homework.

I am absolutely worried about this situation. Should one parent get wind that another child might be getting "special" consideration, it could get very ugly. We have to be very very cautious about how this works. Thus, the need for a very carefully thought out plan for identification.

Our district did away with identification and essentially uses a modified Renzulli model. The population here is exactly what you describe, a lot of high achieving kids and the label of gifted programming was very attractive to parents and kids alike.

I won’t bore you with details but try and give you the short version. All our AP and honored level classes are open to everyone, regardless of ability. There is a teacher recommendation process, but parents can override it frequently, and do. The result is that the vast majority of honors/AP classes are taught with a lot of scaffolding. For a gifted kid, that can mean a lot of frustrating busywork. My kid rarely studied, either, but she did drown in endless amounts of frustrating homework.

Examples include many more practice problems than she found necessary, but they were required, and graded. Notes being collected and graded. Having to turn in index cards and outlines for research papers, for a grade (my DD created these after her paper was finished, complete waste of her time).

I have very conflicted feelings overall about this. I agree strongly that having the opportunity to take advanced coursework should be available to every kid who wants it. I find some of the gatekeeping measures taken to prevent kids from attempting more challenging work to be abhorrent and capricious- what is the downside if the kid struggles or fails and has to,drop to a lower level class? However, the comments above about a tutor industry accompanying this kind of policy are certainly true, and we see it here, primarily with math but also foreign language and other classes.

However, if one provides access to all kids, then there has to be flexibility or adjustment of expectations. My kid doesn’t need to do a review packet, or dozens of problems set problems, or detailed index cards. And that should be up to her, not part of her grade. Having those resources available is great, and can comtribute to the overall success of all students, but they shouldn’t be a requirement. If it’s truly advanced coursework, the kids need to be able to manage it that way, the problem is many of the kids taking it are not ready for that responsibility,

It’s a huge problem- I wish you luck and hope you find a solution.

I guess my point was that this is a way you could tell the gifted and non-gifted apart. But you'd have to work with them rather than test them in order to do this.

I've been thinking about this thread a bit. I think there may be separate questions. One is how to determine access to a program or a course, and the other is the content of of the program or the course.

As far as courses are concerned, I lean toward admitting nearly anyone. Examples: I know a college that admits 70+% of its applicants. The attitude there seems to be, You want to be an aerospace engineer or a physicist? Fine. Give it a go, and remember that we won't water anything down. They don't, and half of a given freshman class doesn't make it to the first day of third year. My impression isn't that this college is deliberately weeding people out so much as simply running the courses the way they should be run. It could be argued that many students shouldn't be admitted, but the reality is more complicated: I've been told that a lot of the students fail in 2nd year because of laziness.

Alternatively, I took a course in modern physics a year ago and wasn't qualified on paper. The instructor let me take the class anyway and gave me no special treatment whatsoever. I got an A. On paper, I looked "unqualified," but the reality was different.

So those are two examples where qualified people can't handle it and an unqualified person could.

My suggestion is to worry less about who gets into the gifted program and more about what it will cover. By this, I mean, in-depth exploration of ideas that are difficult to grasp. So for middle-school-aged kids, an idea would be an exploration of the scientific revolution (which would include lessons on the geocentric model of the universe, how Copernicus came up with the heliocentric model, as well as Galileo's and Newton's contributions). This stuff isn't easy, but it's the kind of material that gifties eat for breakfast.

Another idea is to run an language class. They did that with my class when I was in 4th grade, and it was great. Language Arts was too easy for a few of us, so we got to take Spanish lessons 2 or 3 days a week instead.

You'll end up with some bright kids who aren't gifted regardless, in part because of politics and so on, but if the material is aimed at the most intelligent students, so what? The ones who aren't interested might bail out, leaving the program with a group of bright and gifted kids who'll really get something out of it.

I think these questions are intimately related. You can't know how to identify students who would benefit from the program before you have determined what that program is. I highly recommend the book Beyond Gifted Education for anyone considering these issues.

Also, regarding Val's comments about open access to gifted programming, I've read about a district (or it might have been a school) in Hawaii that did this and it was a huge success. Unfortunately, I can't find the source right now. Anyway, the key was, like Val said, not lowering the standard of instruction. If I come across the source, I will pass it along.

Will parents who push that much be interested in having their kids do anything that isn't designed to improve test scores. I think many if not most would think it a waste of time. If you do design it in a way they approve it won't really be a gifted programme.