Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums Identification, Testing & Assessment Let's give up perfectionism, and lead!

Fact: Every Person who uses the word gifted has their own idea in their head.
Fact: We will never, ever be able to truly make catagories that fit actual real live breathing children.
Fact: That if we don't make catagories, imperfect as they may be, we can't lead others to our way of thinking.
Fact: Whatever we do will get twisted and perverted by unthinking people, and used to hurt the ones we want to help the most, sometimes, but if we do nothing, then very little will get accomplished for most Gifted Kids under most conditions.

((If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
from --Rudyard Kipling's If))

Proposal:
I propose that the products of education be divided into three tracks -
1 - Skills - such as handwriting, keyboarding, telling time, multiplication facts, taking turns
2 - Knowledge of the World - facts and how they interrelate
3 - Critical Thinking Skills



So I could come to school, tell the District that I have tests that show my child is functioning

Age+6mo on Track 1
Age+4y on Track 2
and
Age+5y on Track 3


and they'd say - that's terrific, we'll put him in this class where they work at age level on skills and above level +4 years on new knowledge and critical thinking.


Of course these tests don't exist yet. (These classrooms don't exist yet either, outside of a few schools and homes) When States and Homeschool curricula put together their scope and sequence, the topics could be divided onto the three tracks. Then a parent wouldn't have to spend money on an IQ test that the school district won't credit anyway. The parent could just bring in a tape, of their child performing the skills, reciting the knowledge, and discussing the topic/showing written product using their critial thinking skills along with the grade level guidelines that match. The district can view the product to confirm that it does match the intended grade, and have a short interview to met the child and confirm that it's not a hoax. Placement decisions can flow from there.

I think that we haven't wanted to be too clear about levels of Giftedness to avoid hurting people's feelings, but we here at GI toss around Ruff 2,3, and 4 and people are pleased for each other. I think we don't want to make divisions because what if a child underperforms with strangers and hides their talent? With this system, we can discribe, in the present, what a child is ready to learn, without getting involved with their future prognosis, their future value to the world. I believe that all children are valuable right now, as they are, valuable enough to deserve an educational experience that give them a clean chance at being their best selves.

What about the children who are extra creative. I propose placing a "c" next to which ever strand demonstrates the unusual creativity. As in:
+3 Skill,c for the child who has beautiful handwriting and invents calligraphy as she goes.
+2 Critical Thinking, c for the child who makes very creative arguments.

Also, I think there is a place for children who are particularly focused in a particular area. This could be denoted:
+2 Knowledge, with +6 in knowledge of the Environment.

Well my Dear Ones, I hope that someone else has already written all this down, and that we can get to work promoting it, or that you have objections and improvements to suggest. But for now, I'm having a very exciting day. Who has ideas?

Love and More Love,
Trinity

Well, I don't have ideas and actually had to read through this post twice to fully comprehend :-)Bravo!
I fully agree with the statement that we do not like to differentiate kids/talk about different levels if giftedness for the fear of someone being hurt. This to me is US problem.
I grew up in Europe and let me tell you, teachers there loved to work with smart kids. I would go as far as saying that it was the kids of lower than average intelligence that were suffering in those classrooms. Lessons were tailored toward 25% of the smartest students. Giftedness was nurtured by teachers staying after school to prepare kids for academic olympiads.
I do not want to put US down, this is my home now and I love this country. But what struck me here many years ago was this believe that anyone can accomplish anything if you only work hard enough. Unfortuantely, in most cases this is not so. Some are bright enough to do their doctor degrees while others can only go as far as vocational school And it is OK. This is normal!
Look at it this way: most parents will look for help when they have a student that is underperforming, but when they have a one constantly getting top grades they will be just content and do not seek any additional enrichment. I know that it is very simplistic approach, and maybe it hurts some social groups, but that is what I would advocate for. After all my kids are smart and this is my starting point.
When I was about to start high school, I had to take an entrance exam. Everybody knew which high school had what ranking,top school would only admit top students. This way we were among our intellectual peers. The system was very easy, you knew you had to study extra hard to get into the top school. And once you got in , teachers hold you to very high expectations. Schools like the one described in School of Dreams were everywhere.
My kids living in Utah do not have the options I had back in Europe 30 years ago! And do not get me even started on learning foreign languages - nobody here sees this as an important part of elementary education. While in Europe little kids are learning two foreign languages!
The problem - teachers are being evaluated according to how well the class will write a test. Thus teaching to the test and NCLB.

But back to Trinity's postulates - How do you want to acomplish
what you believe would be the right system of evaluating kids. What is your next step? Or were you just "venting"?
Ania

Not venting, just testing the waters. Actually hoping that someone would recognise this approach and let me know that it is already in use.
Step One, we ourselves adopt the terminology, and begin looking at our children in terms of the three tracks, and looke to see where the differential is. Just us, talking about our children from this perspective, will fan out and change the way we, and schools look at the "gifted problem"
Step Two, talk to researchers and let them know that there is a market to provide tests that actually look for this information.
Step three, Powerpoint presentations, website, talks at schools.
Step four, resources for parents of tests that are already availible and meaningful, including tutoring centers.
Step five, Work with national curriculum building orgnaizations to divide their age level goals into the 3 tracks.
Step six, work with school districts and private school to develop "gifted protocol."

Honestly, I think that just giving birth to this idea, and pursuading us to use this way of thinking, can create quite an underground ripple. I'm already using it in my emails. I'll feel satisfied when it becomes second nature for a school staff to say to a parent, "We have looked at your child, their age places them in 3rd grade, their Critical thinking skills places them in 7th grade, their Knowledge is 5th grade level, but they're skill level is only 4th grade. Let's sit down and set up a plan that will address your child's needs.

I'm open to any other suggested steps.
And yes, I do thing that the U.S. is quite odd in it's anti-intellectuallism and flat out denial of inate differences. This has led to some good things, but has also hurt many children.

Love and More Love,
Trinity

Dottie -
thanks for highlighting my key question. do you think you would get anywhere with the school folks if you said: We my DC is 8 by birth certificate, has the skills of a 9 year old, the Knowledge base of a 16 year old and critical thinking of a 13 year old. Can you design a program for a child like this?

Or My child is 14, has the skills and critical thinking of a 16 year old, and knowledge base of a 14 year old. Can you help me plug up the gaps she has in her knowledge base by suggesting a few good history books, and then give her a gradeskip?

If I'm on the right track, we can make this particular change just by thinking and talking and asking for resources over and over again. As long as we are making our way thorough the system, we may as well leave some good structure in place. So tell me, am I in the ballpark? Have I overlooked something?

Trin

Trinity, I love your ideas and suggestions. An important part of the advocacy we do for own children lies in educating our own school systems about "gifted" in general. I think it's important to carefully consider the terminology we use, to make sure we're communicating concepts that are readily understood. In some cases we do need to "reframe" the information to allow it to be better received. As I fight for my own child's needs within the school system, I always hope that whatever "educating of the educators" I accomplish will somehow benefit the next gifted child who comes along.

You Go Galaxy Girl! - i think that all change starts one to one.

Dear Ones -
All this talk about FOK had me remembering this old thread. What do you think of my old ideas? Any new ways to present them? or to add or change? I had thought that I had addressed 2E, but I didn't see it....
Smiles,
Trinity

I would add creativity, novelty, innovation whatever as number 4.
It is rare and should be nurtured.
I have known people with a huge fund of knowledge but not a novel thought in their head. they do very well in the world

Some people have the capacity for novel thinking, synthesis -that makes for new products, disease cures, more efficient food supplies, poollution free energy, innovatinve educational process etc and the world sucks it right out of them.
Others work in these fields with derivitive ideas and make scant progress.

I think it starts with being forced to color in the lines and goes out from there. the creativity drain that is...

confused,
I have seen this also. I would like to combine creativity and critical thinking. I haven't read much about creativity, but I remember that there is a phase of idea gathering, building mental models and then looking critically at the ideas. I guess we could go back to Bloom's Taxonomy - does that have enough support for your concept of creativity in it? Maybe the early ability to do abstract thought is at the base of both?

Of course no one will be uniform in their skills, their FOK, or their Thought processes. Strength in one area will tend to lap over into other areas, with a few exceptions (The classic one is trying to handwrite a "story" when one is small and full of big ideas and high standards of what a "story" is.)were the realms fight eachother.

Humm
Trin

"Just in time" learning. What a great, vivid discription! The closest thing I have heard is "aproximal level of challenge" - you may want to try googling for it. There is research that shows that this is exactly what is needed!

DS says that all kids are bored (wasting time) at school, some because it's too easy and some because it's too hard. I'm not as cynical as he is. My hunch is that school works pretty well for at least 60% of kid, perhaps closer to 85%. I would like to see more kids challenged, though. I think that much too little is expected of children in many many ways. I think that almost the only thing that kids need is support to find their passion, and help how to turn the roadblocks into stepping stones.

Trin