Facets of Gifted Education: Crissa Markow, Family Consultant

We're continuing our series of Q&As with people involved in gifted education. Today we talk with Crissa Markow, a Family Consultant with the Davidson Institute for Talent Development's Young Scholars program.

GE: Talk a little bit about DITD's free Young Scholars program. Who is it for? What does it involve?

Markow: The Davidson Young Scholars Program is designed to provide information and resources to help parents address the needs of their exceptionally bright children in the areas of educational advocacy and planning, talent and interest development, and child/adolescent development. Applicants are ages 5 to 16, and we serve Young Scholars until they turn 18. Each family is connected with a Family Consultant, who provides individualized support over the phone and email. Parents and Young Scholars also have access to one another through an online community, which includes a private website, electronic mailing lists, bulletin boards, and online seminars with various experts. Additionally, there are opportunities for families to get together in person. We have found families benefit greatly from being able to share their experiences, challenges and solutions. The services vary somewhat by family, as each family has different needs and chooses their level of involvement in the program. Also, the Young Scholars program is free!

GE: What does a family consultant do?

Markow: The Family Consultant works with parents to offer individualized assistance based on the Young Scholar’s unique needs. We see our relationship with the family as a partnership in addressing issues and concerns that arise in the context of raising an exceptionally bright young person. Family Consultants can conduct individualized searches for information, contact educators and administrators as needed, help brainstorm options and explain what we’ve seen work for other Young Scholars. Often, we are simply a supportive sounding board for parents.

GE: Can you give an (anonymous) example of a situation in which you were able to help?

Markow: So many come to mind! We often brainstorm ideas for math or writing that end up being implemented, or we assist the family in finding a local mentor, or we guide the family through finding a local therapist for a Young Scholar who can intellectually understand major life changes like death, but doesn’t have the life experience to cope effectively. Recently, a parent was working with the Young Scholar’s school to make sure his needs were being met in the classroom. The school recognized how few students they had seen at this ability level, so they asked the mom how they could best meet his needs. She wasn’t sure either, so turned to her Family Consultant for ideas. The Family Consultant suggested a few curriculum ideas that we were familiar with and that had worked for other Young Scholars. The school ended up adopting one of those programs and now uses it for the Young Scholar, as well as other bright students at the school.

GE: If readers want to learn more or apply for the YS program, what should they do?

Markow: Interested families may want to visit the Young Scholar website at www.DavidsonGifted.org/YoungScholars/ for additional information about the program, as well as Qualification Criteria and the Young Scholar Application. There is also a link to one parent’s perspective of the Young Scholars program.

Where are they now? (Intel/Westinghouse)

In a little over a week I'll be going down to Washington to write about the winners of this year's Intel Science Talent Search. The modern version of what used to be called the Westinghouse Science Talent Search brings teenage finalists to DC every year, puts their independent research projects through rigorous judging, then awards the top winners big prizes.

I've spent the past year writing a weekly online column for Scientific American about former finalists in the Westinghouse called "Where Are They Now?" A few recent fun ones: Scott Fruhan, a med student/songwriter who actually plays in a band called Heath Street with a friend of mine; Andrew Heafitz, who got a patent for the model rocket camera he built for Westinghouse, and now works on building flying cars; and Jonathan Gershenzon, director of the Max Planck Institute for Chemical Ecology in Germany. He grew up burying his nose in plants because he liked thinking about why they smelled how they smelled and now... he's studying very similar things.

If you haven't had a chance to check out the series, please do! It's a good look at what gifted young people have done and become when they grow up.

Is Genius Born or Learned?

We'll be returning to our Q&As with various folks in gifted education soon (I have several requests out). But in the meantime, I wanted to share an interesting article from Time Magazine (Feb 13): Is Genius Born, or Can it be Learned?

Reporter John Cloud tackles the genius wars going on between people who say that genius is a divine gift, and those who say it's all a matter of nurture and practice (like Malcolm Gladwell, whose book, Outliers, we've discussed here at Gifted Exchange).

It should come as no surprise that more measured heads believe that high achievement is a mix of both, a position taken in Dean Keith Simonton's new book, Genius 101. Gladwell, for instance, took the rather contrarian view that IQ means nothing. After all, the "Termites" (children participating in Lewis Terman's longitudinal study of high IQ young people) did not achieve in a particularly out-sized way compared to what you'd expect from a group of generally well-to-do kids raised by generally-well-educated parents. Geoff Colvin's book, Talent is Overrated, elaborates on the theory with references to three sisters whose parents chose, quite randomly, to make them into chess champions through hours and hours of practice. The idea? Anyone can be a genius if he works hard enough.

According to Cloud, "Simonton rather dismissively calls this the 'drudge theory.' He thinks the real story is more complicated: deliberate practice, he says, is a necessary but not sufficient condition for creating genius. For one thing, you need to be smart enough for practice to teach you something. In a 2002 study, Simonton showed that the average IQ of 64 eminent scientists was around 150, fully 50 points higher than the average IQ for the general population. And most of the variation in IQs (about 80%, according to Simonton) is explained by genetics."

I think most of us here would agree with this nuanced view. Success in many cerebral occupations does require a lot of innate intelligence, just as success in basketball almost always requires some amount of height, and success in modeling requires physical attractiveness. None of these qualities, alas, is evenly distributed in the population. Of course, innate intelligence by itself (or height, or beauty) won't get you too far, something even Julian Stanley, founder of the Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth, said later in his life. As he once told Johns Hopkins magazine, “I used to sort of worship I.Q., but you can't major in I.Q. A high I.Q. and 50 cents can buy you a 50-cent cup of coffee. There's a lot to the work ethic.”

He's onto something, if overstating the case. It's the intersection of intelligence and hard work -- plus some luck and opportunity -- that makes success possible.

So what does this mean for gifted education? The problem is that currently, children with high IQs are identified, but then very little is done to help them develop their talents. We don't give them the opportunity to work hard. We don't give bright young children a chance to spend many many hours in deliberate practice, challenging them to the extent of their abilities. Instead, we give them a little pull-out here, a little award ceremony there, and some chastising to be happy with this because, hey, you're acing the grade level tests. Clearly we can do better (also a subject Cloud wrote about in the past, highlighting the Davidson Academy of Reno in a piece called "Are We Failing Our Geniuses?").

The Case for National Standards

American Federation of Teachers president Randi Weingarten had a thought-provoking piece in the Washington Post recently on "The Case for National Standards."

As Weingarten points out, she lives in Washington, DC. She can hop on the metro and get to Virginia and Maryland easily. Yet these states have quite different standards, as do the other 48 states in the union plus DC. Some states have high standards -- like Massachusetts and Minnesota, whose students rank near the top of the world in international comparisons. Others? It's more of a mixed bag. But for purposes of recognizing which states and schools are making adequate yearly progress for No Child Left Behind, the federal government treats these standards as equally valid -- as if (she suggests) the Pittsburgh Steelers had to move 10 yards to get a first down, and the Arizona Cardinals only had to move 7.

This is a point that has been made before, but what's interesting is that Weingarten, the head of a teachers union, is throwing her support behind it. More importantly, she says that the creation of national standards will not lead to teachers becoming robots, simply going through a prescribed curriculum. "Just as different pianists can look at the same music and bring to it unique interpretations and flourishes, various teachers working from a common standard should be able to do the same," she writes.

I have two thoughts about this. First, I recognize that what gifted students often need most in schools is flexibility. I would of course be concerned that national standards -- tied to accountability -- would lead to even more focus on lower achievers at the expense of higher achievers. A recent Fordham report found that NCLB had led to this very result, so NCLB with more teeth could do that even more.

BUT... I would never say that raising standards (if that's what national standards would do) would be a bad thing. Gifted kids, like all kids, need better schools -- ones that demand lots of their students and view themselves as places where kids should be challenged. On the whole, I'm sympathetic to Weingarten's ideas, and am curious what readers here think.

Gifted Education in the Time of Budget Cuts

This has been a year of dreary economic news. When incomes fall and vacant housing increases, that takes a chunk out of state and local tax revenue. Since many states are required by law to balance their budgets, that means that the money has to come from somewhere. Education being a big chunk of the average state budget, any program that is seen as optional (and some that aren't) will get a look.

And so, I'm starting to see headlines about gifted programs being restructured and the like. In Prince George's County, Maryland, school officials are looking at combining some programs and schools. If there is talk of restructuring in your district, please let me know, as I'm trying to make a list.

I have two thoughts about this. As long time readers of this blog know, I have no particular fondness for the "pull out" programs that are labeled by many districts as gifted education. Kids leave their normal classrooms for 90 minutes or so a week to do enrichment activities like studying bugs or Robin Hood, or the culture of Japan, or go on special field trips, etc. You do not have to be gifted to learn about these things, and such programs tend to breed resentment. Plus, while they give gifted kids a social outlet and are always fun, they don't give gifted kids what they really need -- which is academic work that challenges them to the extent of their abilities.

Of course, the problem is that when schools cut these pull-out programs, they tend not to implement the far more effective alternatives, which are either self-contained magnet gifted schools, if your district is big enough, or acceleration (subject matter or whole grade) or some combo of both. Acceleration is effective and costs absolutely nothing. It's also routinely disparaged in districts that should know better. I heard recently from the family of a 4-year-old who wanted to start kindergarten because he was already reading. No dice. If the family had wanted to hold the child back until he was 6, though, so he'd be bigger and better at sports and handwriting and all that good stuff, the district would have had no problem with that. Magnet gifted schools are no more expensive than other magnet schools if you keep the pupil teacher ratio at the same level as other district schools. Kids can be accelerated within such self-contained schools if necessary.

Unfortunately, neither of these ideas are being broadly implemented. It's a missed opportunity. Tough economic times can spur people to re-examine old ways of doing things, but it's never easy.

"I never, ever sit behind my desk"

Today in our series, we have a Q&A with Kirsten O'Neill, a high school English and art classroom teacher. She has worked with children of all levels and discusses differentiation and quality teaching with us.

GE: How does a good teacher deal with a wide range of abilities in a class?

O'Neill: My classrooms have always been all inclusive, so my students fall along all lines of the learning spectrum. A.D.D., A.D.H.D., Asperger's, dysgraphia, dyslexia, gifted, twice exceptional - I've worked with all of them. I have found that there are basic, key elements that lead to success when working with such diverse populations. First, one must understand what each of the learning disabilities and giftedness are. I make it a personal priority to educate myself on the characteristics, learning styles, possible challenges, and behavior traits that may be associated with each learning disability, as well as giftedness. I keep a binder, divided into sections, by my desk with the most up-to-date articles, research, and best practices. While this research does eat away a lot of personal time, I find the efforts well worth it.

Second, I use a classroom management system that works for all students, regardless of ability. I am a personal advocate and user of Love and Logic in the Classroom. I find that the methods in Love and Logic work, because students learn to accept the outcomes of their choices. I like the methods because students can sense that favoritism is not an issue.

Third, I expect my students to be actively engaged in the learning process at all times that they are in my class. I do not expect them all to be at or functioning on the same level, but I do expect them to learning and working. Because there is such a wide range, students may need to use tools to help them succeed. One student may have a headset on, listening to a book on tape instead of reading one. Another may be isolated in a quiet corner, working, due to sensory issues. One may be sitting on a floor or sprawled out while writing. Another may using a laptop to type notes. I have found that giving the students freedom to use whatever tools they need to be successful works. Distractions are rare and occur more at the beginning of the school year. The students learn quickly that distractions won't be tolerated and the source of the distraction will be removed, whether it is the student herself or her tool. I have had a few parents and administrators raise an eyebrow at such un-school like methods, but any objections are short lived, especially upon observation.

Last, I never, ever sit behind my desk. My seat is usually a depository for whatever supplies I bring in for the day. Working with such wide ranges also brings in a host of social and emotional levels and challenges, too. By staying active, being aware of classroom undercurrents, walking around, sitting with students, pulling students into circles for round-robin sessions, I try to head-off or eliminate any potential disruptions. I also try to get to know my students personally. I try to make time to talk with each student before or after class. I stand by the door and greet each one by name as they walk in the room. I have found that sometimes, it's the personal connection, much like a nurse's bedside care, that students respond to best.


GE: Describe how you differentiated a certain lesson or curriculum for kids with
varying needs.

O'Neill: This is a very technical question. I have to differentiate the majority of the time I teach. I start with a common theme or unit that all of my students will be studying at one time. I then break the units into categories, then break the categories into lesson plans and activities that can be easily adjusted to each student's learning ability. This provides flexibility, allowing me to individualize up or down the learning curve as needed, without too much re-write. Therefore, all of my students are engaged in learning the same unit/material; differentiation allows them to reach the lesson's objectives according to ability.

I will illustrate with actual lesson plans derived from my junior English class' study of Hamlet. Obviously, I started with my theme - Hamlet. Next, I broke down what I wanted my students to be responsible for collectively learning as we study the unit. I broke my original theme into six categories, not including the scheduled tests, quiz, or project, as follows: Shakespeare and the Elizabethan Era (pre-reading/background info), Act I, Act II,(Test Act I & II), Act III, Act IV (Test Act III & IV) Act V (Quiz), and End-unit Project.

The categories provided the framework for the lesson plans - and room for differentiation. Here's a sample of how it worked and where I used differentiation.

Act One, Lesson 1: Dramatics Personae
Objective: Students will identify key characters in the play and create a character sketch for each player. Students will use information gathered and learned in the pre-reading activities to help build their sketches.

Before students enter the classroom, the following will be posted on the board:

- What does the title, The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark, tell the Elizabethans who have come to see the play?

Today's Objective: Using only the Dramatis Personae, create a character sketch for each of the following key characters. (*Clue: What did you learn about the Elizabethans that might help you describe the characters?)

[List includes Claudius, Gertrude, Ghost of Hamlet's Father, Hamlet, Ophelia, Polonius, Rosencrantz, etc.]

Start of Class: Five minute discussion dissecting the question.

At the end of the q & a session, spend another 5-10 minutes asking questions about what they recall about the Elizabethans.

Next: Students become engaged in creating their character sketches. (25min)

Ok - here is where the differentiation really occurs. Notice that I did not specify how the character sketch is to be completed; only that one must be done. The students are able to create individualized character sketches, without breaking into groups. At this time, students have their books out or are listening to their taped Hamlet. All of my students are actively creating a character sketch. My g/t students created complex outlines or wrote essays, with lots of detail, others used simple charts or wheels, and some of my dysgraphic students drew actual sketches.

Close: At the end of 25 min., students share what they created. Because my classes are small, I usually could get to everyone before the end of class.

End: Cliffhanger: How many predict that their character sketches are accurate? Take a tally and write the number on the board, to begin Act One, Lesson 2.

Grading: If one met the class objective, then one earned an A for that lesson.
Simple, fair, and everyone learned.


GE: What do you wish more teachers knew about gifted kids?

O'Neill: I could write an entire book on this very subject! If I could have one wish granted, I would wish that every teacher would receive education and training on teaching gifted students. That way, every teacher would have a basic understanding of what giftedness is and what it entails. Gifted children are not perfect; they are not perfect children with model behavior and perfect decorum. Gifted students are not perfect students, either. There may be one or two that fit into that unjust expectation, but by and large, that is not the case. Gifted students are messy, disorganized, perpetually late, both to class and with assignments; sometimes, they can even be failing and in danger of dropping out of school entirely! Gifted students do, at times, require direct instruction and sometimes, remedial instructions. These students deserve to be properly educated, challenged, and stimulated; they are not in class to act as a peer-tutor, classroom aide, student monitor, or run errands.

One can be gifted in one area and not another. One can be intellectually gifted or artistically gifted or both. Gifted students deserve as much attention and support in the classroom as lower-level students. Being gifted is not elitist; a gifted student needs support and challenges, especially because of the negative emotional and social impacts that gifted students endure simply for being who they are. Giftedness is not found among only wealthy students; giftedness cuts across race, cultures, and socio-economics. I wish that more teachers were trained to observe the traits of giftedness, so that more gifted students were identified at early ages.

I wish that teachers understood that students should never be punished or put down or singled out because they happen to be gifted. They should not be given extra classwork to make up for missed work during their pull-out programs. Does one give students extra work, if they are required to go to remedial reading instruction? If you wouldn't behave that way to a child with a disability, why behave that way towards one with great ability and potential? I wish teachers would realize that gifted students are not a threat; they may be smarter then the educator, but isn't that what we would wish of all our students?

I also wish that teachers would understand that gifted students are human. Some gifted students, especially older students, are under tremendous pressures. They are still children, and even gifted children may need to be schooled in manners and acceptable behaviors. Disruptive behavior is not an indicator of giftedness; disruptive behavior, in any student, is a cry for help. In gifted boys, acting out may mean that they are not being sufficiently challenged. Gifted girls, however, tend to withdraw, become shy and quiet, especially around peers. Just as rowdy boys may need to learn how to appropriately garner attention, shy girls need to be drawn out. Gifted children may be more sensitive, emotional, or reactive then other students. Most gifted children long to be what they consider normal - and they will learn to live and survive a lifetime accepting that they are not.

And last, I want to remind teachers that our gifted students deserve better then what we, as a nation, currently offer. I would encourage advocacy and teacher education. Gifted students have neither the support, funding, nor legal mandates that would provide them the services they need to succeed. I wish that teachers who have no experience or education on working with gifted students would be bold and admit it. I would rather a gifted student be removed at the teacher's request and sent to another classroom, with a teacher trained in working with the gifted, then have that student and their untrained teacher suffer through a miserable, wasted school year. A mind is too precious, and a terrible thing to waste.

GE: What do you wish more parents of gifted kids knew about teachers?

O'Neill: I wish that parents understood the tremendous pressures teachers are under to conform to their district's and state's standards. Sometimes, what a parent wishes his or her child were learning and what is approved differ. Teachers, even great ones, may find that they are bound by policy. Also, I wish parents knew that one may not be gifted, yet be able to teach gifted children. Sometimes, parents need to have a little faith and trust in the teacher's abilities. We are, after all, degreed professionals, who are required to attend so many training hours a year to maintain certification.

I wish that parents would listen to what the teacher is saying about their child; we actively observe students, day in and day out, and we can be a great ally and advocate for their gifted child. Sometimes, parents get so caught up in their child's giftedness, they fail to see the actual child. I wish parents knew that just because their child is gifted, it does not entitle them to bragging rights or unrealistic expectations.

Last, I wish parents knew how much personal time, research, and training goes into being an educator of gifted children. But, we still have a personal life, too, and our job can't always be an extension of our home life. I wish that parents knew, particularly those who teach gifted children, that teachers are a great resource and are approachable. Even if we disagree, teachers usually have the child's best interests at heart.

Television and kids

We will return to our regularly scheduled Q&As with various folks involved in gifted education soon. But in the meantime, a slight diversion: Television.

I have a column in today's USA TODAY about "The Great TV Disaster."

The news hook is the (originally scheduled) Feb 17, 2009 transition to digital TV signals. The transition could have, in theory, left some analog-only households in the dark. Our government has spent a lot of time and effort making sure no one suffers that great tragedy, but my point was that there is no policy interest in making sure people can watch TV. If anything, there's a major public interest in getting people to watch less. A major NIH report in December found that 30 years of research shows that, when it comes to kids, TV time is highly correlated with obesity, smoking, poor school outcomes, etc. These ills can cost society trillions over time.

Though fewer people study this, TV isn't good for adults either. It creates a time deficit for everything else. We watch 4.5 hours per day, on average, which means we don't exercise, work as much as we could, play with our kids as much as we could, etc. We do still sleep 8 hours, but we think we're getting less, possibly because other studies have found that a lot of evening screen time makes you feel less rested.

Anyway -- there are a lot of problems with TV time. Of course, there's also a lot of cool stuff on TV, too. We are in a big Elmo phase right now in my household. My 21-month-old son (yes, I know, under the American Academy of Pediatrics recommended age for viewing TV) is way into the furry red monster. I believe it started in earnest when he got his first hair cut a month ago. (That's the photo accompanying this post). The lady who cut his hair had him sit on a fire truck and watch an Elmo video. Next thing you know, he's saying "Elmo! Elmo!" and pointing at our TV very insistently. So we have the DVDs.

In theory, Elmo is educational. The reality is that children young enough to be in Elmo's target market don't pick up too much on the educational component. They just know that the character is appealing and, after a short while, familiar. Familiar things are cool in a scary world. So what do we do? We do our best to limit the screen time and make sure Jasper plays outside and with friends a lot too.

I'm curious what other people do. Is TV allowed in your house? What are the rules on show choice and timing? Are there shows that really are educational and smart enough to justify the time they take -- particularly for gifted kids?

Facets of Gifted Education: Hoagies' Gifted Education Pages

Today in our interview series we have Carolyn K., the host of Hoagies' Gifted Education Pages. Twelve years ago, this mom began compiling links to gifted education resources and articles. She called the page Hoagies because her husband's nickname had been Hoagies in high school and college, and so she became known as Mrs. Hoagies, and so the webpage became a Hoagie family effort. If you want to know why his nickname was Hoagies...you'll just have to go check out the webpage.

These days, if you're the parent of a newly identified gifted child and you go online to Google "gifted education," Hoagies is the first place you'll land. She joins us today.

GE: Who should check out Hoagies?

CK: Hoagies' Page is for everyone who knows a gifted child... Or is one! Hoagies' is divided into three parts: Parents; Teachers, Administrators, Counselors and other professionals; and Gifted Kids & Teens. The Parents and Teachers pages are full of articles and annotated links to other resources on just about every subject in gifted education: Identification, Parenting, Gifted Programs, Differentiation, Free Online High School Courses, Twice Exceptional Children, and hundreds more. Resources include research, professional resources and parent success stories, by authors including Miraca Gross, David Elkind, Kathi Kearney and dozens of others.

The Kids & Teens pages are lesser known... 20+ pages of child-safe links by topic, from Art to Space, Brain Teasers to Math, even a page of fun Multiplication links for practice. Plus the Hot Topics Reading List - a different kind of reading list, organized by topic then reading level, with topics including Early Readers, Math, Science, Biography, Classics, Cartoons, History, Puzzles, Social Stuff, Being Gifted, and more! There are also 15 pages of Toys and Games that gifted kids love, featuring many small toy companies who have developed great games that you won't find on the shelves of your local store; a page of Software titles that gifted kids love for more than just a day; Movies featuring gifted kids in a positive light;
Magazines; Contests; and even Nerd Shirts - those great T's featuring pithy sayings or likenesses of your favorite nerd.

Hoagies' Gifted Education Page is for everyone!

GE: You've been at this for 12 years (a lifetime on the web) - what have you learned while building and maintaining your portal? Anything you were surprised by? Is the web changing much about gifted kids and education?

CK: I have learned that there's still not a lot of information out in the
public on gifted kids. Most pre-service education programs don't teach about gifted children at all, and teachers come out of school with no knowledge of gifted, or worse, with misconceptions. Counselors, psychologists, and physicians, too! It's up to these professionals to learn about gifted kids after their formal education. The good news is, there are a *lot* more books and other resources than there were 12 years ago.

I've learned that parents of the gifted often feel alone and isolated. That's how I felt 12 years ago, and that's how many parents who write me feel today. The internet allows us to find information, but more important, to find each other. It's so relieving to learn that we are not alone!

The web has changed a lot, for those who use its resources, but I'm always surprised when I go to a conference and the majority of the attendees have never heard of Hoagies' Page, or worse, any of the resources that Hoagies' Page points to on the 'net.

Technically, I've learned the importance of keeping content fresh, keeping old links correct, and keeping the site looking new but quick and easy to load for folks still on slow connections in rural areas.

So far Hoagies' Page has been able to avoid accepting any paid advertising but I'm not sure that can continue; it must start to pay for itself. Our only income is through our affiliates programs... Visitor purchases made through our links to Amazon, Discovery Toys, Barnes & Noble and dozens of other affiliates (click here) on (the site) don't cost visitors anything, but support Hoagies' Page with a few pennies on each purchase.

GE: Any stories from readers that moved you? Has Hoagies made a difference?

CK: I get stories every week from parents, teachers, gifted adults and even teens who've benefited from Hoagies' Page. Compliments are always welcome.

"Your web site is totally impressive and you've gotten to be an expert yourself along the way, in MANY areas related to gifted." -- Peggy

"I want to thank you for Hoagies. If not for your website,
I wouldn't have found the GDC, my daughter wouldn't have been tested, I wouldn't know about Nation Deceived, I wouldn't know that there are other kids much like her, and she'd still be on the edge of a total breakdown, miserable at school." -- J.K.

"I first write to thank you for your tremendous website! This past year, I feel like I have passed through "Gifted 101" to "Doctoral Thesis in Gifted Ed!" Until last year, I had only "mythological" knowledge of the term "gifted." I came into a situation where I felt compelled to advocate strongly for my oldest daughter. I know I could never have done so successfully without all of the wonderful information you offer on your site." -- A Mom from Pennsylvania.

Here are a few of the most heart-warming stories:

"Without Hoagies, my entire family would certainly be MUCH worse off, and my local schools would still be badly damaging ALL the gifted students attending them. If the impact has been anywhere near as great in other places, the good resulting from Hoagies is IMMENSE!" -- Margaret

"I have you to thank for my not only being able to recognize and accept that I have a gifted child, but understand why I always felt like such an oddball my entire life - because I too am GT" -- Sarah

"I just wanted to send you a great big THANK YOU from Australia. About 5 years ago, in total frustration I sent in a couple of lines of text about my PG son literally being taught to twiddle his thumbs in 4th grade. Sensing my distress you wrote a lovely personal email to me validating my feelings about the lack of education my son was getting. Your website was a catalyst for us taking the leap into the last 4 years of homeschooling and it has been a joyous decision for our family. A few weeks ago my son started studying at a University in Sydney after completing the educational requirements and interviews for early entry. He is now a fulfilled happy young man and I am eternally grateful to you as you gave us the knowledge and courage to create the educational environment our son needed. Best Wishes."-- Trish

All these stories really encourage me to keep going. If I can help just one person each week, it's worth it. I think Hoagies' Page has made a difference.

GE: What's the biggest misperception about gifted kids (or their parents?)

CK: I'd say the largest misperception is that gifted kids already have "too much," and don't deserve anything different in their education. I think ALL kids need an appropriate education, and now that we're focusing on the lower-achieving kids (which is a good thing!) many schools are ignoring the high-achieving kids. And I think the solution is simple: let's educate ALL kids starting where they are and moving forward at their pace. Every child deserves to learn every day, every week, every year.

And the parents? There's a mis-conception that we're just pushy parents, that our kids are no different, it's just that we're pushing because we think our kids are "better" than everyone else. Gifted kids aren't better, they're just different. And sure, some parents are pushy, but most of us are just desperate to help our kids grow up happy and healthy. Learning is a big part of all kids' lives; gifted kids need to be happy and healthy in learning, too. That's what all parents want; parents of the gifted are no different.

Facets of Gifted Education: Richard Whitmire

In our continuing conversation with people involved in different aspects of education, we turn today to Richard Whitmire. Whitmire long served as the education editorial writer for USA Today, writing "voice of the paper" editorials. He recently finished a book manuscript about the challenges boys face in school.

GE: What's the most surprising change you've seen in education during your time covering it?

Whitmire: The acceptance of the fact that far more students -- including minority students from low performing high schools -- need at least some college is a huge change. Before, we could rely on the best and brightest from private and suburban schools to fuel our economy, but both the economy and the nation's demographics have changed. Trying to turn that corner is what the education reform movement is all about. It appears likely to go on for years.

GE: Do you think most education reporters are interested in gifted issues? What would make them more interested?

Whitmire: I think reporters like to write about gifted child programs mostly because they have high readership appeal. Either your own child is gifted, you think your child is gifted or you resent the children who were pulled out for gifted programs -- any of those categories will guarantee readership. At the same time I think reporters are very cynical about these programs -- lots of "Volvo brigade" jokes. Frankly, those jokes are partly warranted. School districts often treat the programs as something they need to do for parents rather than something they ought to be doing.

GE: Tell us a little bit about the book you have coming out.

Whitmire: Why Boys Fail, due this fall, is a reporter's take on the boys issue. Because the federal government continues to duck the issue, the entire field has been turned over to psychologists, psychiatrists, ideologues and others who have books to sell, lectures to be paid for, etc. I'm not saying their theories are wrong, but I do think there's a central cause for the problem, a cause that's already been identified in countries such as England and Australia where government investigators have stepped in. In short, what they've found is the world has become more verbal but boys haven't. The failure by schools to help boys adjust to the early verbal demands placed on them (today's preschool is yesterday's second grade) is the core problem. The other stuff -- video games, rap music, etc. -- is chaff.

Kyle Hutzler, 2008 Davidson Fellow, on school reform

We're continuing in our Facets of Gifted Education series with Kyle Hutzler, a 2008 Davidson Fellow. Hutzler, a junior at Huntingtown High School in Huntingtown, MD, won a $10,000 scholarship in the "outside-the-box" category for a paper on education reform, and what Americans expect of their schools. He joins us today.


GE: What were the big findings of your paper?

HUTZLER: My paper argued that choice, accountability, and school autonomy are complementary pillars of effective school reform. Using this as my guide, I wrote a comprehensive policy paper that proposed a national framework designed to unify our educational standards, afford successful schools more autonomy in defining their curriculum, focus, and operations, provide greater tools and mechanisms to improve our underperforming schools, and empower students and parents to choose the school that is best for them. Tuition would be paid for by the federal government based on metrics designed to encourage schools to teach beyond the test. In essence, my paper centers on redefining the definition of what "public" schools are, which should be, in my opinion, independent, non-profit, free, competitive, and accountable institutions.

GE: What would you advise President Obama to focus on from an education perspective?

HUTZLER: While my paper emphasizes a national, federal-led "grand bargain" for education reform, many of its proposals can implemented independently and concurrently by the federal and local governments. From a national perspective, we should continue to move towards coherent, unified standards that reflect a united democratic and economic interest in a quality education that transcends the haphazard standards of individual states.

GE: Locally, what's most important for governors and local school boards to focus on?

HUTZLER: State and local governments can work at the same time to enhance school autonomy and promote individual choice. The latter is important not only for its recognition of education as one of our most important rights, but also because it introduces market mechanisms that (if coordinated with the proper incentives) spur underperforming schools to improve. On a more individual level, I proposed in my paper that as part of the tuition and accountability structure, outstanding schools should be given strong incentives to recruit students from underperforming schools – an opportunity unavailable without some degree of choice and autonomy. Freeing up the labor market for teachers is just as important, allowing schools to price talent for what it is really worth and attract the diverse, qualified "new army" that President Obama seeks.

GE: What's the worst educational idea you've seen floating around?

HUTZLER: In my paper, I refer to the No Child Left Behind Act as the educational equivalent of the Articles of Confederation. There should be no mistake that NCLB is flawed, but a reversion to the aimless system that proceeded it, as some argue, would be far more dangerous. Moving beyond NCLB to achieve the duality of national standards and funding coupled with independent schools is the most natural, logical step if it is communicated clearly and effectively. What makes education reform unique compared to any of our other policy debates is that all of us, regardless of our political perspective, share the same ends: the opportunity of a world-class education for all.

GE: In your personal experience, what do schools do well and do poorly for gifted kids?

HUTZLER: The fundamental principles of individualized instruction, flexibility, rigor, and expanding opportunities and experiences are the same for all students, whether they are the most gifted or the most at-risk. Schools should welcome acceleration and encourage intensive research projects for the gifted. Our schools should be flexible enough to accommodate students who will finish high school in three years just as much as those who need five. The closer we move to a "grade-less" school, where students advance subject-by-subject, not year-by-year, the more effective our education system will become.

Facets of Gifted Education: Q&A with George Peternel

Many years ago, as a 7th and 8th grader at Clay Middle School in South Bend, Indiana, I participated in something called the "Midwest Talent Search." This program, which had gifted middle schoolers take out-of-level tests, and then offered summer and other enrichment programs, was always quite exciting for me. I liked taking the SAT, comparing my score with other MTS participants, and I loved the summer camps, which were basically the highlight of my entire year.

These days, the MTS is called NUMATS (Northwestern University Midwest Academic Talent Search), and today on Gifted Exchange, as part of our Facets of Gifted Education series, I'm happy to present a Q&A with George Peternel, associate director of Northwestern's Center for Talent Development.

GE: Why are out-of level tests important for gifted kids?

PETERNEL: There are a host of reasons why out-of-level (above-level) tests are important for gifted kids. Here are a few.

Most of the tests that gifted elementary and middle school students take are grade-level tests that are far too easy for them, especially the state-tests. There is little challenge and the high scores provide little satisfaction for the student.

Above grade-level testing is a more accurate measure of a gifted student’s academic abilities.

Grade level tests communicate misleading messages to parents and teachers about the academic capabilities of gifted kids. If a child scores at the 99th percentile of a grade level test, the message to many parents and teachers is: He/she is doing well and his/her academic placements are appropriate! If that same child takes an above level test and scores at a high percentile, the message is a very different: He/she needs a more advanced academic program.

Doing well on easy tests does not build confidence. Doing well on above-level tests does.

Gifted kids need to be intellectually stimulated in as many ways as possible. NUMATS testing is a powerful stimulus by itself. It also leads to taking advanced classes.

GE: What trends have been noticed over the past few decades … is there anything different about NUMATS? The kids? Their schools? Parents?

PETERNEL: When Northwestern University’s Center for Talent Development began in 1981, the talent search included SAT and ACT testing for 6th, 7th and 8th grade students. In response to the demand for above-level testing of younger gifted students, EXPLORE testing was added in 2001. The name has been changed from Midwest Talent Search (MTS) to Midwest Academic Talent Search (MATS) to Northwestern University’s Midwest Academic Talent Search (NUMATS), serving students in grades 3-9. Test dates in December, May and June have been added to the calendar to give students and parents more flexibility.

NUMATS serves students in the Midwest, including Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota and Wisconsin. In recent years, the number of students participating in NUMATS has been fairly constant (approximately 30,000 annually). What has changed is the percentage of home-schooled students; the percentage is increasing as more gifted children are home-schooled.

The schools have changed in many ways. There are more acceleration opportunities for gifted students, primarily at the middle school level and usually limited to one subject area, mathematics. NUMATS has put pressure on schools to respond to the needs of students ready for advanced classes, and many schools have responded accordingly. Other changes, however, have not been positive. Gifted programs have been eliminated because of budget cuts. In turn, there are fewer teachers in the schools trained to teach gifted students who understand the value of above-level testing. NCLB has impacted the priorities of schools; instead of giving high priority to meeting the needs of all students, administrator and teacher time and attention increasingly focuses on meeting AYP requirements.

The level of educational attainment of parents has changed; an increasing proportion of parents have college degrees and have similar expectations for their children. More and more, parents look at NUMATS as practice testing for their children that will help optimize test scores when the students become high school juniors and seniors and take the ACT or SAT as a requirement of the college admissions process.

GE: What should happen once a child receives a high score on an out-of-level test? Does this usually happen?

PETERNEL: High scores are the norm. Our own research has verified that NUMATS students score almost as well, on the average, as the high school juniors and seniors across the country taking the SAT or ACT.

After students receive the test scores, the NUMATS staff sends them “Planning and Resource Guides.” These guides assist parents and students in developing an academic plan that includes the course sequences offered by the schools as well as supplementary courses that they choose to take.

The schools also receive the scores, and the realization of how advanced the NUMATS students are. In some cases, these scores are used as placement information. In other cases, the scores prompt the school to take a closer look at their academic options for gifted kids and incorporate this information as they plan advanced courses.

What usually happens is that high scores stimulate thought by the student, parent and school about the academic abilities of the NUMATS students and a variety of outcomes occur.

GE: What is the most rewarding part of the job?

PETERNEL: The positive feedback that we receive from parents is most rewarding, whether it be from telephone calls, emails or the online surveys that we administer to NUMATS clients.

Seeing the excitement and joy on the faces of the students whose high scores qualified them for either the state-level awards ceremonies or the NUMATS ceremony held at Northwestern is also very rewarding.

Finally, the knowledge that the academic careers of thousands of gifted kids each year has been stimulated by the NUMATS process is very satisfying.

GE: What would you like parents to know about NUMATS (that they may not)?

PETERNEL: One of the outcomes of being a NUMATS participant is that each participant will receive a stream of “smart student mail” and “smart student email” from a variety of sources until the student is out of high school. These mailings and emailings include information about academic programs as well as scholarship opportunities.

Taking tests like the ACT or SAT years in advance increases test-taking confidence and provides content familiarity, usually resulting in even higher scores when the tests are taken for college admissions.

NCLB has created negative attitudes about testing (in general) in the minds of many parents of gifted kids. Don’t view NUMATS tests as being just “more tests;” view them instead as “the right kind of tests.”

Facets of Gifted Education: Jim Delisle

This week, we're starting a new series on various facets of gifted education on Gifted Exchange. This series will feature interviews with people involved in gifted education in all its forms.

I'm pleased to announce that we're starting with Jim Delisle, author of Parenting Gifted Kids: Tips for Raising Happy and Successful Children, and many other books. Delisle is now retired from being a professor of special education at Kent State University, and speaks and writes frequently on topics in gifted education.

GE: How does parenting gifted kids differ from parenting other kids (or does it?)

DELISLE: Parenting gifted kids is both the same AND different from parenting any child. The similarities are many: all kids need (and, even though they are loathe to admit it, appreciate) consistency, routine, specific guidance rather than general advice, and parents who present a united front to them, even if mom and dad disagree with each other.

Where the differentness comes in is related specifically to the gifted child's advanced development. Many parents of gifted kids find their child to have questions or concerns far earlier than other kids. For example, while your gifted child may seem oblivious to the TV news you are watching, you find as you tuck him in hours later that he wants to know why Israel and Palestine are always fighting. Or, if your child comes home from school with a sad expression, it might not be because someone was mean to her, but someone was mean to another child--and that hurt *your* child.

Annemarie Roeper, our field's most eminent and practical expert, from my perspective, defines giftedness thusly: "Giftedness is a greater awareness, a greater sensitivity, and a greater ability to understand and transform perceptions into intellectual and emotional experiences." When you read this conception of giftedness closely, you can understand why parenting gifted kids usually has its own set of unique aspects that Dr. Spock never envisioned.

GE: How can parents help children deal with perfectionism?

DELISLE: A treasured colleague of mine, Joanne Whitmore, worked with severely underachieving gifted children in grades 1-3 for several years. Her classic book on this subject, "Giftedness, Conflict and Underachievement", selects two qualities that were pervasive in these children: supersensitivity (see above response) and perfectionism. How ironic, huh? The severely underperforming kids were also the most perfectionistic.

When you think about it, though, this makes (excuse the pun . . .) "perfect" sense. From a very young age, gifted children typically do things very well; often, these are things that other, nongifted children cannot yet do--read, make connections between disparate ideas, understand number systems and symbols readily. Thus, gifted kids are often praised not for who they are as people, but for what they can DO that astounds adults around them. Human doings instead of human beings, so to speak. Over time, gifted children internalize this adult response to praise and, thus, will do anything at all to avoid what they perceive as failure, as that might mean that they are less valued, in the eyes of adults. When they perceive failure to be anything less than perfection, it's easy to understand how an "A-" can be considered a bad grade.

Some useful things that parents can do to avoid this perfectionism quagmire are these: first, analyze the accolades you give to your children--what is it exactly that you are praising, their attempts or their results? Especially with young gifted children, it is important to put them is situations where they don't always come out on top. Also, parents need to show their children that they, too, are not perfect, yet they still get along OK (e.g. Dad plays basketball with his kids even though he admits he's lousy at it. It's the time together that counts.)

Second, as your kids get older, you need to explain to them the dynamics of perfectionism that I mentioned in the previous paragraph. If not, it may affect their academic decisions, choosing to do projects and take classes that are relatively easy to get through without effort.

Third, when you child's work is assessed by others (i.e. a report card), instead of looking at the grades, do this before you even open the envelope: ask your child what s/he is most proud of and why on the enclosed report. It might be a lower grade in a tough subject, not the "Easy A" that you were about to applaud. If essence, you want to ask your child, "What did you LEARN?" instead of "What did you EARN?"

GE: What's the biggest potential pitfall in transitioning from "gifted kid" to productive, happy adult?

DELISLE: I doubt that there is one best route to get from gifted kid to happy, productive adult, given the individual idiosyncrasies that make each of us tick. One key, though, is a piece of advice I gave to our son after a goal he had held for several years--to attend the University of Colorado--got washed away. It wasn't that Matt didn't get into CU, he did. But after being there for less than one semester, he realized that the Brigadoon he imagined it to be actually turned out to be his own personal purgatory. My advice to him then, and still today as the adult he is, is this: "Write your dreams in pencil" (Actually, that's a chapter title in my book, "Parenting Gifted Kids"). If you write your dreams and goals in indelible ink, literally or metaphorically, then you will always see the remnants of this "failure", even as you set new ambitions. A pencil eraser, though, rubs away completely this residual dream, making clean room for others to take its
place.

In a related way, parents must be cautious to make sure that their child's hopes and dreams are not narrowed by their own adult perceptions of success. When our son informed us that his college major was going to be creative writing, our knee-jerk response might have been: "How are you ever going to earn a living at that! Pick something practical!" Instead, we swallowed hard and asked, "Matt, how can we help you do that?" He DID graduate with a creative writing degree (one of five majors he entertained in four years), and even though he is making his career in another creative field (special effects) he can still write a story or letter that'll make you weep. Matt succeeded on his terms, not ours. That's a key; a big one.

GE: You taught middle school for years -- what reform would you like to see implemented broadly for the middle grades?

DELISLE: Even though my primary job for 25 years was as a professor of education at Kent State University, I also taught middle school on a part-time basis for 17 of those years. Why? Credibility for one, as I wanted my college students to realize I was as close to a classroom as one week's distance--not 20 years. The second reason I taught gifted 7th-8th graders for so long is that they simply helped keep things in perspective for me, for they cared little about my credentials or my writing awards; instead, they judged me from two different criteria: was I boring, and did I assign a lot of homework. I'm now reaping the benefits of those years in middle school--attending weddings and writing letters for graduate school admission to kids I taught when they were young. So cool.

To me, the biggest reform we need for gifted students in the middle school is attitudinal. Teachers and administrators need to understand that these kids crave being around others like themselves--kids who think as broadly, feel as deeply, and smash the middle school stereotype as a bunch of hormones on parade into a million pieces. Thus, we have to give up on the wrong-headed notion that kids of all abilities should occupy the same classrooms all day. This inclusive idea has done so much harm, in my opinion, to kids at both the high and the low ends of the learning curve. Since all three of my academic degrees are in special education (mental retardation, emotional disturbances, and gifted education), I think I can speak with some authority on the absurdity of the "one classroom fits all" ideas proposed by many middle school educators.

Too, middle school kids--all of them--need to see the connections between and among content areas, something seldom done when kids spend 45 minutes in math and then move on to 45 more in social studies, where neither they nor their teachers try to form links between these seemingly disparate areas. Connections are vital to middle school kids, both socially and academically. A well-run middle school takes this into account and acts upon it with interdisciplinary instruction and homework.

"Teachers, teachers, teachers" (and national standards)

"Teachers, teachers, teachers" -- that's NYC schools chancellor Joel Klein and Rev. Al Sharpton's three word solution to closing the achievement gap between white and minority students.

These odd bedfellows have an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal today that's given the misleading title of "Charter Schools Can Close the Education Gap." Charter schools are one solution they propose, but the more important ones are the creation of a set of national standards for schools to test against, and re-allocating current federal education spending toward recruiting and retaining the best teachers to troubled schools (and rewarding them on merit). As they point out "there is no reward for excellence in inner-city schools when an outstanding science teacher earns the same salary as a mediocre phys-ed instructor."

(Interestingly, in some schools in NYC, this is not the case. A private program called "Math for America" pays math majors a bonus above their scale salary for teaching in needy schools. But it is mostly true).

Klein and Sharpton point to the growing body of evidence that teacher quality is the most important factor in student achievement, and that the current things we reward -- tenure beyond a few years and advanced degrees -- have nothing to do with anything.

It's a fascinating piece. We've talked about teacher quality before on this blog, so I'd like to talk about their other federal idea: the national set of standards. In the era of No Child Left Behind, states are required to test children regularly, but they have been responsible for creating their own tests. Net result: most states create extremely easy tests, in order to show most of their kids passing. This solves the immediate problem of nixing embarrassing headlines but, of course, does nothing to create citizens prepared for productive employment.

I'm curious what Gifted Exchange readers think of the idea of national standards. I think there's a lot to like about it -- as long as the standards are rigorous -- for a couple reasons. A key one is that it could, in theory, make acceleration easier.

Here's why. National standards would require a national test. There's no reason -- in this green era -- that this would have to be a paper and pencil sort of thing. Economies of scale would almost demand that it not be. If the test was developed as a computer process, that would allow all the grade levels to be in there, and the test to move along with the child, moving forward until the kid is stumped. This would provide an accurate picture of where individual children stand. There would, of course, be a set level for what constitutes proficient in, say, a fourth grader. But if a nine-year-old scored far beyond that, up to what a 12-year-old should know, then this information could be put to productive use.

There is, of course, the question of who would set the standards, but there could certainly be a panel of educators, parents, scientists, mathematicians, literature experts and so forth who could come up with this, with input from colleges and employers. What do you think? This is a topic I'd like to write about more, so please let me know if you see problems with it.

On another note, we're going to be starting a Q&A series on Gifted Exchange with people representing all facets of gifted education. If you know a teacher, principal, school board member, etc. who would make a good subject and who'd be willing to talk with me, please email me at lvanderkam at yahoo dot com. We could also throw in a parent or two if you think you have an interesting angle. And let me know if there are any "big names" you'd like to hear from, and I'll try to track them down!

Students say "yay for science"

I am quoted extensively in a recent Scientific American website post about the annual Lemelson-MIT Invention Index, a survey which asks high school kids about their opinions on science.

The good news? Science is getting quite a re-branding these days. No longer about nerdy guys isolated in their towers, a high percentage of kids (30%) said they were interested in science because they were interested in helping the environment, and 26% said they wanted to improve society. If science is now seen as the eco-hero, do-gooder career, that's a pretty cool recruiting concept. In particular, it's a good recruiting concept for girls. One of the fascinating things about science fields is that if you put the prefix "bio" in front of any particular subject, you raise the proportion of degrees earned by women by a lot. So, for instance, bio-statistics attracts more women than statistics, even though both are very math intensive careers. The perception, though, is that biology-based work is more helpful to and grounded in people and improving the world in general. Hard, bio-less sciences don't have that perception (though, frankly, they should! The world needs a lot of mathematicians solving its problems).

So that's the good news. Unfortunately, as I told the Scientific American blogger, the idea that 80% of kids think their schools have prepared them for careers in science, technology, engineering and math fields is "downright delusional." Only a small percentage of high school kids leave school with the skills and preparation necessary to succeed in 4-year colleges, full-stop, let alone in the demanding STEM fields. I guess this result -- that kids are very excited about science, and feel prepared, even though they're not -- is pretty par for the course in American schools. We have high self-esteem, even if there's little to back it up!

Does the "Gifted" label matter?

I hope everyone had a great holiday break. Gifted Exchange is back and ready for another semester of gifted education news and discussion!

Today's topic: does the gifted label matter?

In Montgomery County, Maryland, parents and school officials are debating that question. According to a recent article in the Washington Post, the schools are "erasing" the gifted label that, "sorts second-grade students, like Dr. Seuss's Sneetches, into those who are gifted (the Star-Bellied sort) and those who are not." (You can already tell the reporter has a bit of a chip on his shoulder with that one). Two members of the school board wrote in shortly thereafter and said this was not exactly the case -- the whole matter was still up for discussion. But it's an interesting question either way. Do gifted kids gain anything by being labeled gifted?

On one side, there is the argument that the gifted label doesn't matter. What matters is that kids' needs are met. One of the most effective means of meeting students' needs -- acceleration -- doesn't require any sort of label. You just send a kid to a different grade if he seems to have mastered the material in his current one. Likewise, people become less excited about the gifted label in high school, because such schools are more likely tracked (with honors classes, AP classes and the like) than elementary school. No need to label, you just sign up for the more challenging classes. The Washington Post discusses some districts where there are accelerated programs, but kids are not necessarily labeled as such.

In Montgomery County, a full 40% of students qualify (under the district's definition) for the gifted label. On some level, this starts to seem a bit absurd. Avoiding labels gets rid of the awkwardness of exactly who is gifted or not (is a kid who just needs a little bit of enrichment gifted? Maybe. Is someone who needs 3 full years of acceleration? Probably).

On the other hand, as parents have pointed out, once you've stopped labeling something, it's easy to pretend it doesn't exist. We don't live in a world where kids of differing levels all wind up being challenged to the extent of their abilities. When districts do label kids, then that at least creates pressure to do something for those with the label.

What do you think? Is it important to have a label? Or do you know of districts that meet kids' needs well without it?

Cautiously optimistic...

That's how I feel about Barack Obama's appointment of Arne Duncan to be Education Secretary.

Obviously, it would have been great to have someone who talks about the needs of high achievers and gifted students a lot, and who has a great track record in that area, but there are few big city school chiefs (who form the farm team for this cabinet post) whose focus tends that way. There's a simple reason for this. By definition, your top 1% of students are going to be rare. A big city school chief needs to focus on making sure most of his students perform at grade level, and that most graduate from high school with the skills necessary to become productive citizens. Chicago has definitely been making progress on this front.

That said, there are reasons to be optimistic, even beyond Duncan's reformer credentials. When he came to Chicago in 1992, he worked on the Ariel Education Initiative, a program of Ariel Investments. Ultimately, this led to the Ariel Community Academy, on whose board Duncan was still serving as of late. Ariel is one of those feel good inner-city success story schools that does a lot of things right -- extended school days for kids who need it, high standards, plus (near to my heart) a curriculum informed by the National Foundation for Teaching Entrepreneurship.

Most importantly for our purposes, though, is one of Ariel's philosophies: middle school kids should have the opportunity to do high school work if they're prepared for it. See this brochure on the school, page 5. To quote, Ariel "provides exceptional students the opportunity to begin high school level coursework while still at Ariel."

This openness to acceleration is a promising sign. Most education decisions are made locally, and this is certainly true with gifted education. But the Education Secretary could do a lot to use his bully pulpit to push the idea of acceleration as a cheap, easy solution to meeting the needs of kids who can handle a little more challenge. Given that Duncan worked with a school where it was par for the course, there's reason to hope he might encourage others to make it par for the course, too.

Is Talent Overrated?

My review of Geoff Colvin's new book, Talent is Overrated, ran at The American's website (and in their daily email to subscribers) today. I'd mentioned on this blog a few weeks ago that I thought the book was quite interesting, and now that the review has run, I can talk about it some more.

Colvin's thesis is that the formula for achieving world-class performance in many fields is quite simple. You have to put in many thousands of hours of "deliberate practice." This deliberate practice involves analyzing your weak spots through constant feedback, working on the specific skills that will make you better, and learning as much as possible about your field. There is no way to rush this process -- it's a matter of getting in the hours. When people achieve world-class status at something at a young age -- like Mozart -- it's because they started very young and spent their youth putting in these effective hours of practice.

Colvin tells some stories that really seem to show that superstars are made, not born. From my review: "The story of the Polgar sisters, which Colvin tells at length, also seems to undermine the notion of God-given talent. In the 1960s, Hungarian educational psychologist Laszlo Polgar postulated that great performers are made, not born. To test this theory, he designed an experiment. Polgar and his wife, Klara, devoted their lives to turning their three daughters into brilliant chess players. Laszlo was only a mediocre player, and Klara hadn’t played much at all, but they filled their home with chess books and homeschooled their girls so they could spend several hours each day mastering the game. As a result, their oldest daughter, Susan, was eventually named a grand master. The other daughters also became top players."

Unfortunately, there wasn't space to get into this in the review, but what I find most fascinating about this story is the ultimate outcome. The Polgar sisters did all achieve world-class status, but they did not achieve the same, and none of them became the world's top player.

Colvin writes: "The middle sister, Sophia, did not reach the heights scaled by her two sisters (though she did become the sixth-ranked woman in the world), and everyone seems to agree that she was the least committed. A lengthy magazine profile of the sisters quoted chess champion Josh Waitzkin as saying Sophia 'was a brilliant speed player, sharp as a tack. But she didn't work as hard as the others.' Susan said that Sophia 'was lazy.' And even Sophia agreed: 'I could give up easier than Judit. I never worked as hard as she did.' Similarly, everyone seems to agree that Judit, who rose highest, worked hardest at practice. It would also stand to reason that by the time Judit, the youngest, came along, Laszlo had refined his methods of practice design.

"As for the fact that none of the sisters became a world champion, it may be hazardous to speculate on why things work out as they do in the rarefied air of the very highest levels. But it's certainly worth noting that when they were in their twenties, when future champions are typically still fighting for their shot at the top, all three sisters decided there was more to life than chess."

It may be hazardous to speculate, but I'm going to go ahead and do it anyway. Here's my thesis on what went on with the Polgar sisters: You can train someone right up to the precipice of the top. But ultimately, world-class achievement requires both practice, passion, and opportunity. You can force the practice. But you cannot force the passion. None of the Polgar sisters chose chess as kids (other than the fact that it was what their family did, which probably made it cool in its own right). Perhaps Sophia was lazy, or perhaps chess just wasn't where her real interests ever lay. When the sisters ultimately had the opportunity to choose what to do with their lives, they eased up on the chess.

Opportunity is the trickiest part of the equation. As I once put in an as-told-to essay I wrote on behalf of Lang Lang (the pianist), stardom is about working "to reach the lucky place where fortune spots you, and lets you shine." Chess is at least relatively straight forward, as there are lots of matches and it's pretty clear who is in the top tier of players. But if you have the misfortune to be born in an era where there are many great chess players, you will have a harder time becoming the world champion. Actually forging new ground in other, less regimented fields, is harder. To break new ground in math and physics you have to find the right problem, the problem that uniquely taps your abilities. There are many great physicists who never win the Nobel Prize. And even if you win the Nobel Prize, you probably won't be a household name like Einstein or Newton. The top physicists all have the practice and passion. They just didn't happen across the absolute right opportunity. Possibly that's even because they were born too late (as one former physicist told me, "all the fun simple stuff has already been done.")

So what does all this mean for gifted kids? Even with future professional musicians, mathematicians and the like, parents occasionally have to force a child to practice. But as Malcolm Gladwell pointed out in Outliers, this nagging takes a different form among kids with the potential for top achievement. It's not "practice the piano or you're grounded" -- it's "you'd better practice or we'll sell the piano." The child has an intrinsic passion and motivation toward the topic. Polgar sisters or not, I don't think you can force this.

You also can't force the opportunity -- but that's a topic for a different post.

Teaching's "Quarterback Problem"

Malcolm Gladwell, author of Outliers, has an article in this past week's New Yorker called "Most Likely to Succeed." He weaves together two narratives -- the problem a NFL scout named Dan Shonka faces in trying to advise teams on which quarterbacks to draft -- and the problem of figuring out how to hire effective teachers.

The link? Top-drafted quarterbacks have an incredibly mixed record in the NFL, in part because the game is just so much more advanced than what they play in college. Rather than throw a perfectly straight pass to an open receiver you can see, you have to throw a perfectly straight pass to a well-guarded receiver you can't see. And you'll be doing this while 4 300-lb guys are trying to dive on top of you. You can't judge a college quarterback on how well he executes the same play over and over; in the NFL he'll have to improvise more because the defense is far less predictable. "There are certain jobs where almost nothing you can learn about candidates before they start predicts how they'll do once they're hired," Gladwell writes. "So how do we know whom to choose in cases like that?" The "case like that" with the most profound social consequence, of course, is teaching.

Readers of this blog know that teacher quality really matters. We've discussed Eric Hanushek's work at Gifted Exchange before, which shows that kids assigned to a good teacher and bad teacher can diverge wildly in achievement in as little as a year. In three years, it's an almost insurmountable difference. As Gladwell points out, "teacher effects dwarf school effects: your child is actually better off in a 'bad' school with an excellent teacher than in an excellent school with a bad teacher. Teacher effects are also much stronger than class-size effects. You'd have to cut the average class almost in half to get the same boost that you'd get if you switched from an average teacher to a teacher in the eighty-fifth percentile."

If you talk to any principal she can tell you -- quite easily -- who's an effective teacher at her school and who isn't. You can also see it in student test scores. A few districts test students at the start of the year and the end of the year. Barring massive differences between classes, this gives you an idea of which teachers give the most "value-added" bang for your buck. If you tested effectively, you could even judge teachers of gifted kids this way -- the kids might score at the 99th percentile on grade level tests, but give them an out-of-grade level test. I recall something like this happening in 3rd grade for me. I took the 3rd grade standardized math test, got a 99, so I took the 4th grade. I got a 99th percentile on that too, so I took the 5th grade test. My score there? 79th percentile -- which meant this was probably the level where I belonged. By the end of the year I was at the 99th percentile on the 5th grade test. That 20 percentage point jump is a pretty good indication I was learning something.

But how do we define effectiveness? Or is it just like the famous quote about pornography, that we just know it when we see it? Gladwell discusses watching tapes with folks from Virginia's Curry School of Education to show how effective teachers behave in the classroom -- they tend to engage students, evaluate where everyone is, problem solve to figure out new ways of explaining things, and keep order by redirecting kids who are misbehaving. There really are big differences -- he describes one trig teacher who, in the time it takes a less effective teacher to boot her computer because she forgot to turn it on, has managed to interact with every child in his math class.

But while it's obvious to everyone which practicing teachers are good and which aren't, Gladwell says, it's not obvious to anyone when you're hiring a new teacher who will be good and who won't. The things we typically look for -- masters degrees, teaching certificates -- tell you absolutely nothing. Only being in front of a class can tell you that. But by the time a teacher has her grounding in front of a class -- 2 years in -- she's protected from firing by a rigid tenure system if she's bad, and rewarded less than a 30-year piece of deadwood if she's good.

So Gladwell suggests changing up the process. "We shouldn't be raising standards" for hiring teachers, he says. "We should be lowering them, because there is no point in raising standards if standards don't track with what we care about. Teaching should be open to anyone with a pulse and a college degree-- and teachers should be judged after they have started their jobs, not before. That means that the profession needs to start the equivalent of...training camp. It needs an apprenticeship system that allows candidates to be rigorously evaluated... you'd probably have to try out four candidates to find one good teacher. That means tenure can't be routinely awarded...An apprentice should get apprentice wages. But if we find eighty-fifth percentile teachers who can teach a year and a half's material in one year, we're going to have to pay them a lot -- both because we want them to stay and because the only way to get people to try out for what will suddenly be a high-risk profession is to offer those who survive the winnowing a healthy reward."

(As a side note, this tracks my point about treating the teaching corps like McKinsey in my Michelle Rhee post: McKinsey is more selective than most big school districts, but it still hires a lot of associates and tries them out. Most leave of their own accord or are "counseled to leave" in three years. It's hard to stick around to make partner. But once you do, the rewards get much better).

It's an interesting piece and, in Malcolm Gladwell fashion, very engaging. Of course, he paints with a broad brush to make his point (also vintage Gladwell). Though Gladwell doesn't mention this, Hanushek studies have found that one or two variables we can figure out beforehand do matter some. A key one? Teachers' scores on standardized tests. That means that, other things being equal, a teacher who scores a 700 on the SAT math section is going to be a more effective teacher than one who scores a 500. The higher score tends to indicate that the teacher is better able to figure things out quickly. This ability to solve problems quickly is a key component of the "withitness" that Gladwell notes is a common attribute with good teachers. (Perhaps it's another way of saying "intelligence" but since Gladwell just wrote 2 chapters in his last book about how IQ doesn't matter, he doesn't mention this).

Furthermore, Gladwell gets so excited about proving a point that he often fails to be consistent across all his writings, arguing different points with equal vigor. For instance, in Outliers, he reprints charts showing that poor students in Baltimore learn as much as better-off students during the school years, it's just that they learn nothing (or forget things) over summer break. All the talk of reforming schools "assumes that there is something fundamentally wrong with the job schools are doing," he writes. "But look back at the second table, which shows what happens between September and June. Schools work. The only problem with school, for the kids who aren't achieving, is that there isn't enough of it."

Or is the problem that they have lousy teachers? Many more hours over the summer with a lousy teacher is not going to help matters.

The point is that there are many things that need addressing with education. For instance, even bad teachers can do better in classes that are tracked by ability than in heterogeneous classes. We need a lot more acceleration, teachers with better test scores, a more rigorous curriculum, reforms to tenure, etc.

But Gladwell does raise interesting points to a broad audience, and so I'm glad to see this piece in the New Yorker. A mediocre education system isn't good for anyone. Teacher quality matters a lot, and with Bill Gates and others now focusing on it, we may actually get somewhere.

Real Kids Real Research

I have a column in today's USA Today on high school research programs. The piece is called "Real Kids Real Research" and you can read it here.

Siemens Competition swept by public residential high school kids

I spent yesterday covering the announcement of the winners of the Siemens Competition in Math, Science and Technology for Scientific American. You can read my story here. The Siemens Competition awards up to $100,000 scholarships to top high school researchers. Unique among the major high school science competitions, students are also allowed to compete in teams.

So there were three top winners -- one individual (Wen Chyan) and one team (Andrew Guo and Sajith Wickramasekara). Chyan hails from the Texas Academy of Math and Science, a residential public school for gifted juniors and seniors in Denton (by University of North Texas). Guo and Wickramasekara hail from the North Carolina School of Science and Math, a residential public school for gifted juniors and seniors in Durham, NC (near Duke University). There was also a student from my alma mater, the Indiana Academy among the smaller scholarship winners.

Given that public residential high schools enroll an extremely small percentage of the overall high school population, I think this is certainly worth noting. Creating such schools requires a state to consider gifted kids a priority. Frankly, I wish they were from K-12, but I'll take 11-12 (or 10-11-12 in some cases). Public residential high schools can concentrate gifted kids and give them accelerated classes in an environment with their intellectual peers - 24 hours a day! The results? Well, I think the Siemens Competition made that pretty clear.

Parenthood

Today is my 30th birthday, and it started off with a bang -- Jasper (my toddler) woke up vomiting at 1AM. Norovirus is circulating in New York City and we were not spared. At least so far it has been better than last year's stomach bug (which also struck right after my birthday -- I'm beginning to think of norovirus as the universe's little "present" to me).

Anyway, Gifted Exchange was born long before Jasper, but the experience of parenthood has, of course, informed my thoughts on kids and learning. Among the realizations as I'm spending today (mostly) with him:

1. Children learn at their own pace. The idea that parents can "make" their children advanced is just laughable. I'm a writer. I'm into, you know, words. I read multiple books daily to Jasper. I talk to him. I identify things by name and ask him to repeat the names to me. But did Jasper talk early? Hardly. We talked about delaying our 18 month pediatrician appointment so they wouldn't push speech therapy due to his lack of verbalization. He is, finally, expressing himself with a few words. His current favorite? "No." I'm not sure why I was so eager for him to talk just so he'd say that.

2. But boy, are they wired to learn. Kids are natural hard workers if they're given tasks that seem challenging and interesting. Jasper has this little toy which consists of four three-dimensional shapes, and a cube with holes in it in 2-dimensional versions of each of those shapes. He kind of banged it around right until 16 months (it makes annoying noises). Then one day, he looked at the cylinder, looked at the circle hole, and then tried sliding the cylinder through the hole. Bingo! The square and triangle came next, about a week later. He had to practice the star for a while, but now he gets all of them, and can also put his much smaller blocks through the holes in their container top, too. He has figured out creative ways to stick them through -- like that the small triangles will go through both the triangle and the square holes (since the triangles are one-half of the square). We got him a book of magnets in various shapes earlier this week, and yesterday he actually put the little triangle on the various triangle shapes in the book. None of this came easy for him, but he was so interested in figuring things out that he stayed with it.

3. Schools really have to assume a central role in serving kids. Yes, parents can always find other schools, move, hire tutors, bring kids to the library, etc. But the daily experience of being a working parent of a small kid -- and most parents do work outside the home these days -- is so exhausting that it's often hard to assess if your child is getting the best opportunities.

For instance, I think that Jasper has some musical inclination. He likes playing my keyboard -- not just banging it, but listening to the sounds the keys make. He also has some serious rhythm to him. I know these things. I also know about exposing kids to some feedback and instruction on their inclinations is a step in talent development (Tiger Woods was trying to hit golf balls by age 2!). But the only reason Jasper is now taking baby creative movement and music classes is that this year his daycare chose to offer them during center hours (I do have time to write a check). If I didn't do anything about developing these little inclinations of his, why would I assume that other parents would on their own, either?

Nurturing talent has to be a social goal. Schools have to give kids the chance to test out various inclinations, choose the ones they like and then work hard at getting better at them. The more I think about it, the more I like the idea of curriculum compacting for gifted kids, to free up time to pursue their passions.

Bill Gates: Small Schools "Disappointing"

Last month, Bill Gates made one of the most remarkable education speeches ever. You can read the remarks, delivered at the Forum on Education here.

Here's the gist. Over the past decade, the Gates Foundation has spent about $2 billion on its goal of having 80% of minority and low-income students graduate from high school college-ready. The Foundation has mainly supported this through a "small schools" initiative that breaks existing low-performing schools into 400-student blocks. The theory is that these small schools will reduce drop-out rates -- even in the absence of other major improvements -- by making students feel part of a community. When all the teachers and principals know your name, you have to keep showing up, right?

As we've discussed in the past on Gifted Exchange, though, these small schools come at a cost, particularly for advanced or gifted students. Advanced students are already more rare than they should be in predominantly low-income schools (for a variety of unfortunate reasons that readers here are familiar with). The benefit of a large school is that you can concentrate top students and give them classes with their intellectual peers. A school with 2000 kids might have 20 such students -- in theory, enough for a class and some social interaction. Break that into 5 smaller schools, though -- with no concentration by ability/readiness (which the Gates Foundation has not supported) -- and you suddenly have 4 advanced kids per school. That's only one per grade. So the gifted/advanced program goes out the window.

This is a problem, because a lack of advanced classes does not hurt all bright children equally. Kids from higher-income families often have the social supports in place to get tutoring after school, take distance learning classes, or even go to the library and such if schools don't meet their needs. As Malcolm Gladwell describes in his recent book, Outliers, at least one in-depth study of poor and better-off children found that lower-income children receive far less parental "cultivation" than their peers. There are positive aspects to this: They often devise their own games and (as he quotes one researcher) can be less "whiny." But the lack of cultivation puts them at a disadvantage in terms of using their smarts to make their way successfully in the world. If their schools don't cultivate them, no one will. A lack of advanced classes for bright low-income children is a decision to waste their talents. There is really no other way to describe it.

So anyway, we've been against the "small schools" initiative for years. Now, Bill Gates has acknowledged that the results have been "disappointing" too. This is one of the things I love about the Gates Foundation -- they studied their efforts, and found that the evidence did not support their theory. Rather than bury the evidence, or insist that the study didn't capture the right things, or that the small schools initiative hadn't really been tried, Gates shared the findings. Here's what he said in his speech:

"In the first four years of our work with new, small schools, most of the schools had achievement scores below district averages on reading and math assessments. In one set of schools we supported, graduation rates were no better than the statewide average, and reading and math scores were consistently below the average. The percentage of students attending college the year after graduating high school was up only 2.5 percentage points after five years. Simply breaking up existing schools into smaller units often did not generate the gains we were hoping for."

He went on to make several important points. First, this is what he said about the schools that did work:

"In general, the places that demonstrated the strongest results tended to do many proven reforms well, all at once: they would create smaller schools, a longer day, better relationships—-but they would also establish college-ready standards aligned with a rigorous curriculum, with the instructional tools to support it, effective teachers to teach it, and data systems to track the progress.

"These factors distinguished the schools with the biggest gains in student achievement. Interestingly, these are also limiting factors in taking these gains to scale. A model that depends on great teaching can’t be replicated by schools that can’t attract and develop great teachers. A school that has great instructional tools cannot share them with schools that don’t use the rigorous curriculum those tools are based on."

This is a problem, because the Gates Foundation's entire philanthropic mission is to find ideas that work and then scale them up.

So what to do? The Foundation's philosophy may be shifting to focusing on teachers, not school structure. "The defining feature of a great education is what happens in the classroom," Gates said. "Everything starts from that and must be built around it. So we’re going to sharpen our focus on effective teaching—in particular supporting new standards, curriculum, instructional tools, and data that help teachers—because these changes trigger the biggest gains, they are hardest to scale, and that is what’s holding us back."

He had a few other intriguing ideas. One -- which we will talk about more on this blog later -- is the idea of doing vastly more research on exactly how students learn and what curricula work. "The education sector desperately needs an infrastructure for creating better instructional tools—always with measurement systems in place so we have evidence that the new way works better than the old way. Without evidence, innovation is just another word for 'fad,'" Gates said. "Doctors aren’t left alone in their offices to try to design and test new medicines. They’re supported by a huge medical research industry. Teachers need the same kind of support."

I like this idea. Why not treat teaching as a tough profession which -- like medicine -- requires smart people with effective diagnostic and treatment tools? It is not (as Michelle Rhee has said) simply a profession for people who like cutting out bulletin board displays for the various seasons.

Of course, even with all Bill Gates's money, resources aren't infinite. So -- given that great teachers are so important -- we have to figure out if we're paying for the right things.

Right now, it really doesn't look like we are. As he said, "Money is tight. We need to spend it wisely. We’re now spending $8 billion a year for teachers with master’s degrees, even though the evidence suggests that master’s degrees do not improve student achievement. We’re spending billions on a seniority system, even though the evidence says that seniority, after the first five years, may not improve student achievement. We’ve spent billions to reduce class size, even though there is no strong evidence that spending money to reduce class size in high school is the most impactful way to improve student performance. And the last thing we can afford—-whether the economy is good or bad—-is to pay teachers who can’t do the job. As President-elect Obama and others have pointed out: We need to give all teachers the benefit of clear standards, sound curriculum, good training, and top instructional tools. But if their students still keep falling behind, they’re in the wrong line of work, and they need to find another job."

It is "disappointing" that the first few billions of Gates Foundation education money have not helped advance his mission of giving every person the opportunity to live a healthy and productive life. But if Bill Gates is willing to spend another $2 billion in figuring out exactly how to create good teachers and better feedback systems, I think he'll find this to be a far better investment.