Carol Fertig: "It is impossible for teachers to do it all"

Today we welcome Carol Fertig to Gifted Exchange. Fertig is a gifted education expert and the author of Raising a Gifted Child: A Parenting Success Handbook, new from Prufrock Press.

GE: You've been in gifted ed for decades—why did you write Raising a Gifted Child now? Did you learn anything new in the process?

Fertig: Writing Raising a Gifted Child: A Parenting Success Handbook presented me with an opportunity to combine two things that I enjoy very much: writing and sharing resources.

Since the spring of 2005, I have been doing the Gifted Child Information Blog for Prufrock Press. In the weekly entries, I include lots of information on a variety of topics specific to gifted education, including philosophy and theory, practical information and techniques, many excellent resources, and current events. The blog is designed to appeal to both teachers and parents. Joel McIntosh, publisher of Prufrock Press, asked me to put the book together for parents, based on the type of information that I include in the blog.

Writing the book gave me a chance to take much of the information I had previously assembled in the blog and reorganize it into meaningful chapters, while weaving in interesting stories of real students and families.

The biggest challenge was working with such a large document. I had to learn how to manage so much text.

GE: What's the biggest misconception about parenting a gifted kid? (that the public has, and that parents themselves have)?

Fertig: Probably the biggest misconception is that parents of gifted children need to be afraid. Well-meaning parents may read articles or books that suggest that a gifted child’s needs must be met using a specific strategy at school or the young person will be destined to misery the rest of his life. Most parents do not realize that whether their child is highly gifted, gifted, or just bright, there are many choices for directing and supplementing educational opportunities. In Raising a Gifted Child, I show parents that they don’t need to be afraid; instead, I present the many possibilities there are for school choice (including homeschooling and virtual schools), mentors, tutors, enriching experiences, and resources. I explain how many strategies can be combined to provide good educational experiences.

Most people (the public, parents of gifted kids, and teachers) get hung up on cookie cutter approaches. Much time is spent on the definition and identification of giftedness rather than looking at kids as complex beings with sets of strengths and challenges. The definition of giftedness varies between experts in the field. If the experts can’t agree on a definition, it is even more difficult to find a uniform identification process. Some students have and/or develop much greater strengths than others. It is more important to figure out and act on the strengths of kids than it is to label them.

GE: When a parent first learns that his or her child is gifted, what should the first step be? What resources do you recommend?

Fertig: It is important for parents to realize that there is no one right way to raise and educate highly capable children; instead, there are many good choices and one must pick what works for each family and situation. The only way to understand the possible choices is to learn about them.

In Raising a Gifted Child, I offer a large menu of strategies, organizations, school options, Web sites, tips, and suggestions to encourage smart kids to learn and develop. I provide specific suggestions for language arts, math, science, social studies, foreign language, music and art, technology, high-level thinking skills, and creativity. Many suggestions are for students who have strong interests and perform above average. Other resources and strategies are for the few kids who are among the smartest in the nation.

GE: You call on parents to be pro-active and constructive when dealing with the child's school. Please talk a little bit more about what this means, and what's the best approach.

Fertig: It is impossible for teachers to do it all. There is simply not enough time. Parents can be a great asset at school, setting up mentorship programs, before/during/afterschool clubs and enrichment classes, and working with small groups of children on specific skills. In Raising a Gifted Child, I talk about the most effective ways for parents to offer their services (giving specific language to use) and explain why teachers are sometimes reluctant to ask parents to help. I describe in detail several mentorship model programs that have been successfully executed — mostly set up by parent volunteers. In the chapter on specific subjects, numerous academic clubs, commercial programs, and supplementary materials from quality educational publishers are listed. These can all be used for enrichment and subject acceleration opportunities.

GE: How can Raising a Gifted Child best be used?

Fertig: The book can be used in a variety of ways, including as a resource for students who have specific strengths or interests, for parents to see the many educational choices they have, and for ideas for enrichment at home. Raising a Gifted Child is a good starting point for parent/parent and parent/teacher discussions. It is also a good resource for parenting networking groups — especially as a jumping off point for sharing strategies and resources that have worked in families with gifted kids.

Facets of Gifted Education: Lou DiGioia and MATHCOUNTS

Today in the "Facets" series, we're talking with Lou DiGioia, the executive director of MATHCOUNTS, which is the nation's largest middle school math enrichment, coaching and competition program. Every year, hundreds of thousands of students participate -- including, I'm sure, many children of Gifted Exchange readers -- and alums include everyone from, well, DiGioia to me! DiGioia also hosts a blog called "Rational Expressions" at the MATHCOUNTS web site. I invite readers to share their MATHCOUNTS experiences in the comments section.

GE: Tell us a little bit about why 7th and 8th graders should check out MATHCOUNTS.

DiGioia: Because there is something in it for everyone! If a student needs help in math, there are lots of free resources that can help give them that extra boost they need to improve their abilities. If a student is looking for a new challenge in math, the problems in our competitions are sure to test students no matter how good their skills are!

GE: Has the competition changed in any way over the years?

DiGioia: Not at all. The competition still consists of 4 levels - school, chapter, state and national, and the tests we give today are still in the same format as when we started. The questions change each year, but they still maintain our high standards for creativity.

GE: Are there any famous former Mathletes?

DiGioia: Besides me? Kidding of course! There are former mathletes in all walks of life, and we have highlighted several alums who have done some amazing things on our website, www.mathcounts.org. That being said, it's amazing where I'll run into former mathletes. At a recent conference I met the Mayor of Pittsburgh, Luke Ravenstahl, who informed me that he did MATHCOUNTS when he was in middle school.

GE: What will it take to get more young Americans aiming for science, math and technology careers?

DiGioia: A commitment on the part of all parties involved to improving education. This includes the students, parents, teachers, school systems, and the government to work together to emphasize the importance of math education. I think we're finally seeing increased awareness of just how important math is on a large scale and the message is being pushed down to the grassroots level. It certainly helps when the President makes math education one of the top priorities of his education agenda!

The Importance of Preschool

I have lines out to several more folks for Q&As in our Facets of Gifted Education series, but today I thought we'd look at a different topic. Parents of gifted children often know there is something different about their child by age 3 or 4 or even earlier, even if most aren't officially identified until kindergarten or 3rd grade. If you find yourself with such a child, what should you do? And how young can children start learning a more formal academic curriculum?

As some of you know, I have a toddler, Jasper, who is almost 2. Since I work at home, we chose to put him in a daycare center about two blocks from our house. For the first year or so, it was pretty much just straight up childcare. But when he was about 15 months old, he moved to the "young toddlers" class, and now is in the "toddlers" class, and they've really stepped up the educational game. He learned to identify shapes including squares, ovals and octagons (granted, he loves yelling "octagon" and octagon for him means any shape with n sides where n>6, but still...) He pointed out the letter B to me on one of his blocks the other day, and counts his puzzles. It's pretty much pure memorization at this point -- he'll often count up to four or five, even if there are only three puzzles -- but if he had been home with me during the days, I doubt it would have occurred to me to teach him to identify octagons. And he loves learning all these things (in addition to hanging out with his friends).

While I know Jasper is a smart kid, I don't think he is profoundly gifted. Nonetheless, my experience with him has made me wonder about how parents can expose extremely gifted preschool aged children to a level of learning that keeps them challenged. One of the good things about preschool (good ones, that is) is that they tend to have more discovery-based curricula -- the point is to play and learn things, not necessarily all learn the same things at the same time. Indeed, the more I think about it, the more I think that it's not a bad idea to get children into high quality preschools as soon as possible. Most "normal" preschools start for children around ages 2 or 3, but younger children -- like Jasper -- can definitely still be interested in these things. He would not be exposed to them nearly as regularly otherwise.

I am aware that this is probably a controversial statement, so I've been trying to find some research that talks about this issue. There is certainly research about the benefits of preschool; I found this article from Parents about Why Preschool Matters, and this old article about challenging gifted young children in preschool from Children Today, but these are mainly about programs for 3- and 4-year-olds. Most of the research on "childcare" programs (which can be for younger children) focuses on their effect on at-risk children, particularly low-income children. High quality programs have been shown to help such children, though the jury is out for kids from other backgrounds. It may be a wash.

I'm curious what Gifted Exchange readers have found. Did you put your gifted children in childcare or preschool programs when they were toddlers? Did they enjoy them? Did it stimulate their little brains, or make the transition to school easier?

Bucking the Trend

In his Q&A (below), Prufrock publisher Joel McIntosh mentioned that the dominant trend these days is toward heterogeneous classrooms, and so a big chunk of his market is selling differentiation guides to teachers. Likewise, we've been discussing budget cuts that have led to the cancellation or shrinking of gifted programs around the country.

So it's interesting to read about one district, at least, that's bucking the trend. According to a recent article in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, the Prior Lake-Savage district school board recently voted to create a homogeneous gifted program within a larger elementary school. The program will be open to gifted students from across the district in 3rd, 4th and 5th grades.

Such self-contained programs that draw from outside normal school boundaries are (along with acceleration) the gold standard for gifted education. Not only are they more likely to challenge gifted kids in an environment with their peers, they reduce the workload for teachers of other classes (who won't need to differentiate quite as much). If the school district already allows busing for various other reasons (diversity, school choice and so forth) then you can usually keep transportation costs in line with per pupil expenditures under these programs, and since children have to be educated in one class or another, such classes should not cost more than other classes if the teacher-to-pupil ratio is in line with school district guidelines. And if you keep children in the local public schools who might have otherwise attended private schools or have been homeschooled, then the district actually gains per pupil funding.

This is exactly the thought process that appears to have won over the local school board. According to the Star-Tribune article, "The district says it can start the program without spending extra money. Instead, it will tap its existing gifted program and student services budgets."

So here's the question. Why did these arguments work in Minnesota? And how can gifted advocates make these arguments resonate elsewhere?

Facets of Gifted Education: Joel McIntosh, Prufrock Press

Joining us today is Joel McIntosh, the publisher of Prufrock Press. Prufrock is "the nation's leading resource for special needs, advanced and gifted learners" and for years has been producing classroom materials and books that deal with the issues we talk about here at Gifted Exchange. McIntosh discusses his work, and current trends in education.

GE: Why does the world need a publisher focused on gifted issues?

McIntosh: Twenty years ago, I taught gifted students in a small town in Texas. I began attending gifted education conferences in the mid-1980s and discovered wonderfully creative teachers who were willing to share their lessons, units, and projects, and scholars who were willing to share their research findings. I remember thinking, "Why isn't someone publishing these great ideas?" It wasn't long before I decided that someone should be me.

The reason we need a publisher focused on gifted education is that large publishers see the field as too small for heavy investments. Without a publishing house like Prufrock Press, the field would have little access to materials that have undergone the kind of vetting, editorial controls, and content improvement that ours do. I think that's an important distinction between what we publish and what a teacher or parent might find by simply searching the Internet for resources. Prufrock Press has a senior advisory group composed of the top scholars in the field of gifted education, all of our editors have graduate degrees in gifted education or children's literature, and we all have classroom experience. In essence, when a customer picks up our catalog, he or she knows that the resources he or she finds there will be research-based and reflect agreed-upon best practices in the field of gifted education.

GE: Who is the audience for your products? How much of what you do is parenting books vs. classroom materials, tests, etc?

McIntosh: A majority of our buyers are teachers who serve gifted children in their classrooms. We also serve university professors and graduate students. The rest of our customers are parents looking for information and resources that challenge their children. Typically, we reach educators through our gifted education catalogs. Parents, on the other hand, quite often find us via the Web. Our Web site is a fantastic resource. In addition to our online catalog, we provide free information about teaching and parenting gifted kids, blogs that focus on important topics in the field, and plenty of online articles that offer practical advice about gifted children.

We do publish a handful of parenting books. Our most recent parenting release, Raising a Gifted Child: A Parenting Success Handbook by Carol Fertig, has been wildly successful because it is the best, most up-to-date resource on parenting strategies, resources, organizations, and tips for parenting a gifted child. The Web resources listed in this book would, by themselves, justify the purchase price of this book.

However, the vast majority of our products are designed as teaching resources or professional development materials. Whether being used in a classroom or at home, these materials are innovative, fun, and research-based. For example, we publish an entire line of guides for teaching philosophy to kids, interdisciplinary curriculum, an entire advanced reading skills program, challenging and fun mathematics resources ... the list of innovative teaching tools that we publish is nearly endless.

I'll tell you something I'm very proud of: our teaching resources are substantial, based on sound research, and assume a sophistication on the part of our customers. Drop by any teacher supply store and look at some of the teaching materials available from big publishers. You'll find book after book of unchallenging, basic-skills, fill-in-the-blank worksheets. Look at our materials and you'll discover an extraordinarily different kind of product. For example, our award-winning curriculum units developed by he Center for Gifted Education at the College of William and Mary feature advanced topics ranging from spatial reasoning to molecular physics.

You should sit in on one of editorial meetings as we sort through the new product proposals we receive from authors. About 95% of the products we reject would probably be acceptable to the larger publishers, but we reject them. We're looking for the real jewels that sparkle. The kinds of proposals that we accept make you want to say, "How cool! I would have loved to teach with this idea. The kids would have loved it."

GE: What current/upcoming titles or products are you most excited about?

Increasingly, schools are moving toward inclusive, mixed-ability classrooms. Teachers are craving practical tools that will help them creatively teach and challenge all of the students in a classroom. We've been working with some of our most popular authors to help address this need.

I'm thrilled about our new middle school series, Differentiating Instruction With Menus. This series offers teachers everything they need to create an inclusive, student-centered learning environment based on choice. These books (one for each of the core content areas) provide a number of fun, different menus that middle school students can use to manage their learning and the exciting, creative products they develop to show the content and skills they have mastered. We released the elementary-level series of menus books 2 years ago, and our customers have loved them. I know our middle school customers will be happy to get their hands of this new version of the series (available in April 2009).

Just this month, we released Differentiation Made Simple: Timesaving Tools for Teachers. This book is like a ready-to-use education toolbox for helping classroom teachers overcome time constraints and other obstacles to differentiation by providing a wealth of ready-made and generic tools they can employ right away.

On a personal note, I am honored to be the publisher of Leading Change in Gifted Education: The Festschrift of Dr. Joyce VanTassel-Baska (available in late March 2009). Few individuals have had such a lifelong and profound impact on the education of gifted children as Dr. VanTassel-Baska. This book traces this important thinker and her impact on gifted education. It includes major strands of work central to defining the field of gifted education and discusses relevant trends and issues that have shaped or will shape the field. This book is sure to be an invaluable resource for policymakers, scholars, researchers, and practitioners who are interested in research-based practices to better serve gifted students. We are proud to have been chosen as the book's publisher.

GE: Have you noticed any big changes in education in 20 years of being involved in these issues?

McIntosh: Absolutely. Twenty years ago, many gifted programs lacked academic rigor and substance. Gifted classes had a lot of fluff (the term we used for activities that seemed fun, but frivolous). Walk into a gifted pull-out program in that day, for example, and you might see kids painting a hand-held shield that featured icons representing different parts of the child's personality. Although fun and possessing some exploratory value, such activities couldn't really be justified as a expenditure of valuable educational resources, especially learning time for students.

Things changed because of many education leaders such as Dr. Joyce VanTassel-Baska at the Center for Gifted Education at The College of William and Mary and Dr. Julian Stanley at the Center for Talented Youth at Johns Hopkins University. These leaders built programs that started with the premise that talented kids ought to be able to have learning opportunities that truly challenge the child in his or her area of talent. Such programs began promoting a kind of education focused on substantial and valuable academic learning experiences for gifted children. It was a real shift in thinking. People like Dr. VanTassel-Baska and Dr. Stanley challenged us to think of an educational environment as having the purpose of challenging every child to the extent of his or her abilities. Every child in any classroom deserves to be challenged with valuable learning experiences, regardless of his or her ability.

Unfortunately, there are many people who see the purpose of education as being nothing more than a guarantee that a set of agreed-upon skills should be mastered by every child. According to this kind of thinking, a gifted child who has already mastered these skills has little purpose in a school. In fact, this has been the driving philosophy behind the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act.

The last 8 years have been tough for gifted education programs and children. NCLB has had a devastating effect on gifted education. The act forced schools to channel funding and other resources toward children who were not reaching NCLB achievement benchmarks. This change of focus and dollars drained resources from gifted child education. The stories of schools, districts, and even entire states dropping funding from gifted education over the last 8 years were common.

I do, however, think that with a change in leadership in Washington, this trend will shift. I expect to see a renewal of interest in gifted education with change in the current administration.

Facets of Gifted Education: Tracy Cross

Today we return to our "Facets of Gifted Education" series with a Q&A with Tracy Cross. Cross is the George and Frances Ball Distinguished Professor of Gifted Studies at Ball State University and the former Executive Director of the Indiana Academy for Science, Mathematics, and Humanities. His research centers on understanding how gifted students cope with being gifted -- and as he tell us, the news is pretty good.

GE: How did you become interested in gifted issues and research?

Cross: When I was four years old, my best friend’s older brother was quite obviously very unusual (intellectually gifted). I loved to listen to him talk and I paid attention to how others treated him. He was very interesting. At the same time, I also was growing up around artists. My family owned an art gallery, so I was around artists much of my school years. I was immersed in a culture of artistic talent. My interests in the psychology of gifted people emerged early in my life and I have been studying them for about 45 years now.

GE: What progress is being made on the gifted ed research front these days (that you think is most important) and what still doesn't get enough attention?

Cross: The fact that the context matters in the development of gifted students has been proven to be very important but still is somewhat under the radar for many. We still spend considerable time and energy trying to create lists of endogenous characteristics (those about the person) of gifted students.

The concept of nonuniversal developmental patterns of gifted students is very important to understanding them, but is not really understood by many at this point. Recent work on eminent professionals has shown a bright light on these developmental patterns.

Some important research has been conducted to test differing grouping approaches such as cluster grouping for instruction. Beginning about twenty years ago, the slow accumulation of these studies has built up our education techniques that can be used to more effectively teach gifted students in heterogeneous settings.

GE: What did you learn from your time heading the Indiana Academy that helps with your research now?

Cross: I learned many things from serving as the Executive Director of the Indiana Academy. For example, it was affirmed for me that gifted students are the most heterogeneous group of people to study. So commenting about their so-called characteristics becomes more of a stipulation rather than an empirically established fact. Moreover, the context in which those students attend schools made evident the power of specialized learning environments. Amazing things happen when you get a critical mass of intellectually gifted students together with a faculty who wants to work with them.

GE: What is the biggest misunderstanding about the social and emotional needs of gifted young people?

Cross: Perhaps the biggest misunderstanding is the result of conflating the two terms to mean one phenomenon. I find that while they overlap, they are clearly different from one another. I am personally more invested in the social development of gifted students as I have found it to be the most intriguing aspect of the psychology of gifted students. I also believe that it is a more powerful predictor of lived experience and future behavior.

A second misunderstanding is the myth that gifted students have a greater tendency toward mental health problems. This belief was disproven empirically approximately 100 years ago, but the myth still exists. Recent research has corroborated that students with gifts and talents tend to be healthier, stronger and more socially successful than their nongifted counterparts.

Obama: Lift Charter School Caps

Some encouraging news today (along with a strange but welcome stock market rally) - Pres. Obama, in a speech to the National Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, called on states to lift their caps on charter schools. About half of the states currently limit the number of charter schools that can be started. Since many of these schools -- which receive public money, but operate separately from usual school district control -- have proven to be quite good, there are currently more than 300,000 students on charter school waiting lists. It's absolutely ridiculous not to let these students have more options. You can read more about the proposal, and the rest of Obama's speech, here.

He also repeated calls for a merit pay system for teachers. The details are somewhat fuzzy, and no doubt will be vigorously opposed by the teachers unions that have been among Obama's top supporters. But the idea is roughly that most people are fine with paying teachers more as long as you can get rid of the bad ones, and teachers who show concrete results -- in the form of higher student achievement -- are rewarded appropriately. This is how professionals should be paid and treated. In accounting, for instance, partners in firms can do quite well, but if your clients are continually doing badly on audits, you'd be out the door.

It's not clear yet what any of this would mean for gifted students. Obviously, gifted kids, like all kids, benefit from having better teachers. In theory, charter schools could be great for gifted kids, because some charters could focus on, say, advanced course work. This is what the Charter School of Wilmington was founded to do. On the other hand, many states have rules that charter schools can't pick their students, which makes selecting for giftedness difficult (the Charter School of Wilmington got away with this for years by saying that high test scores indicated an interest in the school's philosophy, and they were allowed to choose students who met that description. This approach has come under quite a bit of fire lately). But in general, charters allow educational experimentation, and flexibility is good for gifted kids. I'd love to hear from parents whose children are enrolled in charter schools about your experiences.

The Science Fair Circuit

Today I'm down in Washington, DC reporting on the finals of the Intel Science Talent Search on behalf of Scientific American. You can read a few of my postings on their website, including one on Chelsea Jurman's social science project (on teen drinking), one on Smitha Ramakrishna's discovery that Splenda isn't broken down by waste water treatment processes, and Aditya Rajagopalan's experiments with cellulosic ethanol (link to go up soon). In the next day or two, SciAm.com should also post my video interviews with several of the finalists.

I've wound up writing about several national science/math competitions this year, including the Davidson Fellows in September, the Siemens Competition in Math, Science and Technology in December, and now this one. You do see several of the same kids again (Julia Ransohoff, of Menlo Park, CA, joked to me about the "science fair circuit"). For instance, Wen Chyan, who won Siemens, is an Intel finalist, as are Christine Shrock and Philip Streich (who were both Davidson Fellows). I'm glad to see this -- it shows there's a lot of validity to the judging. The best projects are, in fact, the best projects!

But even more, I like the idea of a science fair circuit. Parents of kids with outsized athletic talents soon wind up learning about "travel soccer leagues" and the most competitive summer swimming camps and the like. Most of us only see gymnastics in the Olympics, but all those young athletes know each other well. They've been competing against each other every few months for years. Even less well-known sports like, say, trampoline, feature circuits of competitions.

Why not science? The more competitions that exist, the more opportunities exist for top young scientists to win big bucks and attention. And that encourages more young people to spend their summers and afternoons in the lab. A few years ago, the New York Times magazine ran a cover story on the rise of the "gifted child industry." This put a bit of a less positive spin on these contests. But until you see kids in every city park playing pick-up physics... well... I'm happy for more of a circuit.

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?