What Would You Tell Graduates?

It's graduation season again. I'm heading back to Princeton tomorrow for my 10 year reunion. On some level, I think "oh, I can't believe it's been that long" and then I think back through various things that have happened during that time and realize, yep, it has been a while. Since this season always inspires nostalgia, those of us who make a living dishing out career advice tend to seize the occasion to write columns and such on what grads should know. I'm curious what readers of this blog would like to tell bright young people headed out into the world. I have a few thoughts:

1. You're going to switch jobs. I work with the Princeton Alumni Council's careers committee, and every year we ask classes approaching major reunions to take a survey about their career paths. Basically, almost everyone switches jobs within the first few years out of college, with many going to graduate school 2-5 years out. That's when people become a bit more settled on career choice. So your first job should be something interesting that you'll learn a lot from, with the understanding that it's probably more of a project than anything long-term.

2. "Find your passion" is a cliche... for a reason. We ask alumni to give us their words of wisdom, and probably at least half give some version of "find your passion" or "do what you love." It's a nice sentiment, but the reason people harp on it is that we spend a lot of time working. Not the whole of our 168 hours, of course, but a lot. The difference in quality of life between people who whistle while they work and people who are counting the days until retirement is huge. As someone who's trying to build her career and her family simultaneously, I would add that loving what you do is key to getting over various obstacles that combining the two can present. When you love what you do, you keep at it, which is important because...

3. You get better with practice. I find this absolutely wonderful. I had to give an impromptu speech for something in college and it was horrible. I now actually like public speaking. I like being in front of an audience and drawing energy from them as we find common ground together. Did I change personality? No. I just practiced public speaking a lot.

4. Life is a risk. I have taken a few calculated ones over the years. Submitting that first column to USA Today as an intern who'd been on the job 6 weeks. Having it published has led to just about everything else, including, indirectly, this blog (I co-wrote Genius Denied with Jan and Bob Davidson after they read a column I wrote about gifted education in USA Today a year later... co-writing that book gave me the opportunity to write others...) Moving to NYC without a job rather than getting a regular journalism job. Spending 18 long months trying to get a contract for what later became 168 Hours. Some risks turn out well and others don't, but few calculated ones end in disaster. You have to play career fairy godmother to yourself.

5 Be like Oprah. So it's been the last few episodes of her show this week. BNET had a great column about career tips anyone who wanted to build an empire could learn from her. A few? Bet big on yourself, nurture other people's talent (hello Rachel Ray, Dr. Oz, Dr. Phil...) and never coast. Wherever you are, you can always set your sights on something bigger and better, and work to bring yourself there.

What would you tell grads that you've learned over the years?

New York City, Gifted Classes and Seats

We've made the hard decision recently to leave New York City. We're actually moving out to the Philadelphia suburbs this summer, since my husband has been working in that general region and I can (in theory) work anywhere. The idea is to have more space for our growing family and hopefully let my husband have a bit of a calmer life. So I've been watching with a bit of detachment as many parents I know have had their 4- and 5-year olds take New York City's tests for its gifted programs and over the past few weeks have gotten the results back. (If we'd stayed, Jasper would have been tested next year).

This is a huge city, and thanks to decent outreach, many thousands of children sit for the test. I think it's great that NYC tries to test so many children, and I also think it's great that New York City starts gifted education in kindergarten. In many districts, the idea is that they'll all "even out by third grade" when, allegedly, any benefit gained via hothouse parenting or any gaps created by a less-enriching home environment will have been erased. So that's when you start. But this is patently ridiculous. Any reader of this blog who lives with a highly gifted child knows that their quirks, gifts and struggles don't all come out in the wash as they get older.

The issue is that New York City has not actually created enough seats to accommodate students who meet its definition of gifted. To qualify for the city-wide gifted programs, a child needs to score in the 97th percentile nationally on the qualifying tests. This year, 1,788 children did so. There are only 250 seats in the city-wide programs (there are others in neighborhood schools...but maybe not your neighborhood school). So it is still going to be a scramble.

One can argue about where, exactly, on national standardized tests the cut-off should be set. But it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to create a program that can't accommodate all the children who qualify. When you create fewer slots, gifted education starts to be a reward as opposed to an educational intervention for children who need it. In theory, gifted education shouldn't cost more than any other class, as long as you figure a way to keep class size constant (which you could do by combining grades or in NYC where schools may be close together, combining programs at one of the schools). So it's unclear why the situation is what it is. But hopefully, as this massive school system starts to change in other ways, the powers that be will think about this issue as well.

A Global Science Fair

Intel just announced the winners of the annual International Science and Engineering Fair (ISEF). I attended this fair when it was held in Atlanta in 2008, and it's certainly a step up from the usual vinegar volcanoes and plants grown in different conditions. You can read about this year's winners here.

Two interesting highlights? One, this is truly an international fair. Three Thai students won a $50,000 award for designing a new type of plastic out of fish scales. Southeast Asia is not short on fish, so this is a fun development (although apparently the bowls can't yet survive the microwave, so the team is tweaking the design). $50,000 will go a long way in Thailand, so it's cool to see science being rewarded there, and for students from various countries to be exposed to their peers in others.

Finally, Taylor Wilson of Reno, NV won Intel's Young Scientist Award for his project which figures out a low-cost way to detect nuclear material. Wilson's work is receiving funding from the Department of Homeland Security which (shockingly!) sees an application for this idea -- possibly in the Port of Newark close to my home. Anyway, Wilson is a student at the Davidson Academy, housed at the University of Nevada at Reno. One of the selling points of this school for gifted young students is that you can devote serious time to long-term, independent projects. We're certainly seeing the payoff from that now.

Gifted Education: Not A Smart Idea?

Over at the Globe and Mail, economist Frances Woolley wrote about some recent research into the performance of gifted students on No Child Left Behind tests. The conclusion of the research was that there were no outsized gains for these students who were just barely identified as gifted on NCLB tests... and therefore, according to the headline, gifted education may not be a smart idea.

I think Woolley and the researchers are completely missing the point.

I understand the befuddlement. An unfortunately high percentage of gifted programs don’t really offer accelerated work for gifted students. They send them on field trips or into resource rooms where you learn about mythology or some such enrichment topic. What gifted students need is academic work that challenges them to the extent of their abilities. An unfortunate number of gifted programs, operating under the idea that the gifted label is a "reward," also set the bar in a place where many kids whose needs could be served in a regular classroom qualify as gifted. We should not be particularly surprised that there are not huge gains there, or that some of these students might struggle in gifted programs that actually are challenging.

(Regular readers of this blog will also get a good laugh out of the idea that gifted kids get "more educational resources coming their way").

But most of my readers here are dealing with situations where a child would score in the 99th percentile on a grade level test. Put her in a gifted program and, guess what, she’ll still score at the 99th percentile. Because that’s as high as grade level tests go! But a good gifted program may actually allow her to interact with peers on a similar level, and do challenging work, as opposed to grade level work that she mastered years before that leaves her bored to tears. What's so dumb about that?

[Deleting the part about Carleton College -- as it's Carleton in Canada, not in US.]

Is "Most Likely To Succeed" A Self-Fulfilling Prophecy? Or Burden?

Sue Shellenbarger's Work & Family column at the Wall Street Journal today covered a fascinating topic: is the "Most Likely To Succeed" label a burden? For decades, graduating senior classes have voted on which classmate would be running the world at some unspecified future point. The people who win this award tend to be popular, smart and ambitious, which generally does bode well for one's performance in the labor market, according to Christy Lleras, a professor at the University of Illinois, Urbana, who's studied this topic. Shellenbarger cites Lleras's study, published in Social Science Research in 2008, finding that people who'd won this award earned 12% more than their peers 10 years later. A different survey by MemoryLane.com found that about 4 in 10 most-likely-to-succeed winners viewed the label as an inspiration.

On the other hand, about a third viewed it as a curse. Clearly not everyone who wins the most-likely-to-succeed label will have a stunning career. People may have mixed feelings about their careers in the first place, but when you add in the pressure that your classmates once expected you to achieve high school definitions of success, it can feel even worse.

I've been thinking of this in light of gifted students and their later career development. Many gifted students clearly feel a lot of pressure to succeed, much of it self-inflicted. When you're young, everything is possible -- you'll win the Nobel Prize in physics and the presidency, and publish best-sellers and perform piano on the stage of Carnegie Hall! Later on, not only do most of us have to specialize, many soon learn that success of the people-have-heard-of-you variety requires other skills beyond sheer genius. Persistence. Risk-taking. Long-term goal setting, etc. These are important skills too, but not necessarily ones we think of cultivating during the school years.

Anyway, I'm curious how people talk with their gifted kids about goals and career aspirations. Do you encourage total dreaming, or ever talk about the practical side as well?

Leaving High School Early... With Credentials

The New York Times (hat tip to GE reader Twin Mom) had an interesting piece the other day about a program in Texas allowing kids who've demonstrated enough subject mastery to receive a certificate that can be traded in for a high school diploma. The standards for the certificate are set by the state's top two universities, Texas A&M and the University of Texas, and while it doesn't guarantee that a kid will be admitted to either, the idea is that the certificate shows she'd meet their criteria. That makes it a definite step above the GED (which adults can test for at later points in life) which, while certainly helpful for employment and community college enrollment, isn't treated quite the same as a diploma -- and certainly not a diploma that indicates you could have qualified for Texas A&M or UT.

I think this is a great idea, and I'm surprised the idea isn't more widespread. What is the point of high school, after all? Is it to impart to children a certain volume of knowledge (academics and citizenship) or is it a holding tank until they turn 18? If the former, then there's no reason that people who've demonstrated that they've learned what they're supposed to learn can't move on. Finishing high school early allows one to finish college early, and then pursue graduate education or other things, without the often compressed 20s timeline dragged on schooling offers.

Does anyone know of any other states looking into a similar idea?

If Not Gifted, What?

There's an interesting discussion going on in the Title Nine post that I thought deserved its own thread. Namely, what word or words should we use to describe giftedness? Many people (including people who advocate for gifted education) don't like the word "gifted" though it's short and, at this point, pretty universally recognized for what it is. The word does invite criticism -- aren't we all gifted in some fashion? Other kinds of giftedness are sometimes qualified, like "athletically gifted" or "musically gifted" or perhaps for the models among us, "aesthetically gifted." Some folks use "intellectually gifted" to qualify it, or "academically gifted" which is probably the least offensive, though it raises questions too. After all, some gifted children aren't actually that good in school.

I've long blogged about using the words "readiness grouping" instead of "ability grouping" to talk about organizing classes into people who are prepared to handle certain material. It has nothing to do with age or innate talents. We all work at different paces and should be challenged to the extent possible. But I'm not sure what word is better than gifted, which is why I use it, and I'm sure many others do, too. I'm curious if people have great suggestions for other phrases that convey the same point.

Title Nine and Gifted Kids

I get lots of catalogs in the mail, one of which happens to be Title Nine, a maker of women's athletic clothing. I opened the current edition to see founder Missy Park listing "My definition of insanity." It was an 8 part list, with such things as "Any diet with one ingredient," and "our tax code" and... "'Gifted' children...How do they know??"

It's a bit puzzling, really. I mean, there are several ways they know. Some children really do exhibit exceptional intellectual abilities, at a very young age. And if that's not enough, there are multiple tests that have been rigorously prepared and studied that can ascertain when someone's IQ is outside the norm and there is a high probability he/she will need accommodations to meet her academic needs.

But of course, I think Park was coming at this from the perspective that it is patently absurd. Who could fathom such a thing as "gifted" children? I am quite curious what she thinks of the comments that several Davidson Institute bulletin board readers left on the online version of the list. I can sympathize to a degree. When I worked for Reader's Digest, writing the "Only in America" section, I once made a mocking list of "Museums Not To Build Your Vacation Around." I included a mustard museum, with the snarky line "thousands of mustards, not a hot dog in sight." Suddenly, there was a letter writing campaign to Reader's Digest from fans of this particular mustard museum. Dozens upon dozens. I kid you not. I was surprised, and I imagine Park is surprised that what she considered a throwaway line drew such ire.

On the other hand, I think giftedness is well enough established in educational research and pedagogy that it doesn't need quote marks around it. I do wonder why a catalog going after women who think it's OK to bust the norm (on the athletic side of things) would insult children who are busting the norm on another side of things. It's as if someone scoffed "Athletic children... how do they know??" Well... look at someone like Tiger Woods. That's how they know.

For AP Students, a New Classroom is Online

The Wall Street Journal has a fascinating article on the rise in online AP classes. The number of students taking Advanced Placement classes has soared -- with just shy of 2 million expected to sit for exams this spring, up more than 100% from 2000. However, not all schools can offer a full slate of such classes, and in an era of budget cuts, AP classes (which are often smaller than others even as the number of interested students has risen) are ripe targets. But given how standardized these classes are, there's no real reason that you have to be in a physical classroom with a teacher. A few states have charter schools that offer online versions of the classes, and there are national companies, the WSJ reports, that also allow students to enroll for a fee: Advanced Academics ($425 for a one-semester AP class), Apex Learning, Aventa Learning, Florida Virtual School, etc.

Online learning is tricky to get right. As reporter Sue Shellenbarger notes, "One potential drawback for socially connected teens: taking an advanced placement course online seems to require advanced placement time-management skills." It's hard to focus when Facebook and Twitter are one click away! Nonetheless, preliminary comparisons find that students who take online classes do just as well as students who take in-person ones.

I think this is a great trend, as the rise in online learning allows students to break through traditional barriers to taking advanced classes. A school system might balk at shuttling a 7th grader over to a high school for AP US History or AP Calculus, but no one can see how young you look online. Virtual learning is a great way for kids in rural areas to take classes that would otherwise be unaffordable for a small high school. And on the margins, it starts to change the notion that school is something you do in a certain building, with people of a certain age, during certain hours. That's a win for gifted students. I'm curious if any readers of this blog have incorporated online AP courses into their children's individualized learning plans.

Should Science Be Part of NCLB?

I know that No Child Left Behind (NCLB) is not particularly popular within the gifted education community. The law definitely provides a convenient excuse for districts to divert resources from programs for advanced students -- something many seem to want to do anyway. But given that it's unlikely to be gutted, here's a different question: should science be part of NCLB?

Science teachers claim that, particularly at the elementary school level, schools have decided to spend much less time on science instruction since NCLB focuses on math and reading. On one hand, math and reading are pretty foundational, and lay the groundwork for all other subjects. Schools may be spending less time on science, but there are probably other neglected, important subjects too (like foreign languages, history, civics, etc.) that are losing time because of NCLB. Why just science?

On the other hand, broadening the standards movement to include other important subjects has upsides too, and science is certainly an important one. What is measured gets taught. The only way that some schools will start doing lab experiments with young kids is if they know it matters to their bottom lines and reputations. But will standardized tests actually cover scientific knowledge? Hard to know! I'm curious what readers of this blog think.

Google Enters The Science Fair Scene

Young scientists wishing to compete on a national (or international) stage have lots of options these days: The Davidson Fellows program, the Intel Science Talent Search, the Siemens Competition in Math, Science and Technology, and ... Google.

Yes, Google has created a Google Global Science Fair (accepting applications until midnight eastern tonight!) for young scientists to demonstrate their experiments. Google hopes to differentiate its program by being strongly virtual: students upload information about their projects, and lots of people will be able to see what's been entered and judged. The vast majority of humanity will never attend a science fair in a conference center or school gymnasium, but people might check out a cool uploaded video on YouTube (hopefully demonstrating something more profound than the whole baking soda and vinegar volcano bit, but hey, the Diet Coke and Mentos video was pretty popular, so you never know...) The prizes also sound like fun, including a trip to Switzerland and a visit to the Galapagos islands.

The New York Times had a somewhat skeptical article about the contest a few days ago, asking if this was a bit of a marketing ploy to get young people hooked on Google's office products, but I figure hey, the more options the better! Anything that makes science more lucrative and interesting for young people is probably a good thing.

Differentiation, Tracking and Challenge

A recent feature story in the Quad City Times discusses a new "integration" program at North Scott High School that did away with honors classes for freshmen. In their place, students at varying levels of preparation take classes together. Teachers are charged with differentiating within the class. As one teacher puts it, her kids can choose "straightforward" or "hilly" or "mountainous" work. You can read the article (worthwhile, by the way) by following this link.

As long-time readers of this blog may guess, the results have been...mixed. Teachers who have done a lot of training in differentiation, and who are teaching subjects where it's more possible (like social studies) do OK with it. Others struggle quite a bit. As the language arts teacher points out, the most obvious way to differentiate would be to have everyone read the same novel then do different projects with it. But she has such varying reading levels within her class that this is hard to pull off. And some students, as she notes, aren't that into class. Dealing with those discipline issues holds everyone back.

What I find fascinating is the rationale for this de-tracking experiment. According to the article, "Administrators are hoping the end result will be more students signing up for Advanced Placement, or AP, classes." In the past, apparently, only the kids in the honors classes would take AP classes. But why is the solution to this to do away with such classes? An equally obvious solution, to me, would have been to offer more rigorous preparation within the other tracks. It doesn't seem clear why the presence of honors students in general classes would suddenly inspire others to sign up for AP classes later on in their high school careers. More, this seems to me like another excuse to get rid of the readiness grouping which many educators dislike anyway. By framing it in terms of increasing enrollment in AP it gives the movement a little push. But I'd be fascinated to see if rates of students scoring above a 4 or 5 on the AP tests they take go up significantly.

"Treating Students As Gifted," Giftedness and Assumptions

It has become fashionable, of late, to claim that giftedness is purely a construct. Children learn at different paces, and some kids who enter school ahead of others will later regress toward the mean and others will catch up. IQ has nothing to do with success, etc. We have heard all these arguments.

So I'm not surprised to see the spin on recent research out of Duke University, which finds that, "Schools that seek to help students who are underrepresented in advanced programs should treat them as gifted young scholars, an approach that can result in many of them actually performing at a gifted level within a few years." Project Bright Idea put thousands of young students through what the researchers deemed as "techniques usually reserved for gifted classrooms." Net result? 15-20% of students (and in many cases more) later reached the bar for academic giftedness, compared with 10% of a similar group.

So is gifted education a fraud? Not at all. These "techniques usually reserved for gifted classrooms" turn out to look a lot like...good teaching. According to the press release, "The project requires teachers to undergo regular and intensive training, energizing their profession and their classrooms by weaving together teaching strategies based on the work of national education experts... 'We are literally changing the knowledge, skills and dispositions of teachers so they believe children can learn. It is a lot about teacher expectation and belief,' said Mary N. Watson, the director of the exceptional children division of the N.C. Department of Public Instruction, who helped develop the project. In workshops and week-long summer institutes, teachers in the project are taught by national and state-level experts on how to develop students’ thinking and skills such as controlling impulsivity, posing questions and taking responsible risks."

I am not surprised that energized teachers who focus on developing students' thinking skills and controlling impulsivity get good results. I wish all teachers did this, and there's really no reason they shouldn't. If people think this is unique to gifted education, I think they misunderstand the whole idea.

But beyond that, the press release wasn't clear on how students were later identified as gifted, but the fact that 10% of students were identified as such even in the control suggests it may learn toward one of those very broad definitions that get gifted education in trouble. And I worry that the definition may be even broader. This research was funded by the Jacob Javits grant, which, as I wrote back in 2008, had been re-steered to fund programs that solved this problem, per literature from the Department of Education: "In 2007, 32 percent of all 4th grade public school students scored at or above the proficient level in reading on the National Assessment of Educational Progress, compared to only 17 percent of students who are eligible for free or reduced price lunch under the National School Lunch program (i.e., students who are economically disadvantaged), 13 percent of students with disabilities, and 7 percent of students with limited English proficiency. Students from these three groups are significantly underrepresented at or above proficient levels on the 8th grade reading and 4th and 8th grade mathematics assessments." The idea was to find programs that can bring at-risk students up to the top third on standardized tests.

Which is great -- and definitely a worthy endeavor. But not necessarily what gifted education is about. To my mind, gifted education is about meeting the needs of children who are so far outside the norm that they can't be readily accommodated in good classes. All children should be treated as bright, capable scholars. All children should be challenged and their teachers should demand their best. But that has little to do with giftedness.

Early Enrollment: On The Rise?

The Davidson Institute graciously sends me a round-up of headlines from gifted and education news every week or so. These stories are usually all over the map -- a profile of a contest winner here, a closure of a gifted program there, often a Jay Mathews column -- but this week there seemed to be a ton of pieces on early or dual enrollment.

The basic idea is that sometimes course work is offered at the high school level or college level that isn't offered at the level below it, and sometimes students are ready for more advanced work in certain subjects, while still desiring a similar-aged peer group. Especially if educational institutions are near each other (a middle school is across the street from a high school; a community college is around the corner from both), why not allow students to take classes at any institution they want?

In Colorado, students can enroll simultaneously in community college and high school classes. The number of students taking college classes, according to this article in the Denver Post, has risen to 6,473 in 2010 from 1,750 five years ago.

Meanwhile in Chicago, according to a brief write-up in the Chicago Tribune, officials are moving toward a gifted middle school program that would enroll 7th graders, and allow them early admission to Lane Tech High School, one of the city's top public schools.

Over in Michigan, another article from ABC local news talks about a Carrollton program which partners with Delta College to allow students to enroll simultaneously in both. Students can graduate in four years with both a high school diploma and an associate's degree. If that's where you want to stop, you already have a credential for job hunting. If you wish to go on to a 4-year college, you can save lots of cash by having the first two years paid for.

Indeed, there are now so many dual enrollment programs in operation that the National Consortium of Early College Programs, which takes a slightly different tack, met last fall to "provide clarity of the traditional mission and purpose of early college." These programs, like Mary Baldwin's Program for the Exceptionally Gifted and Simon's Rock College, have students leave or skip high school completely to enroll in a 4-year college program.

I think all these programs have their places. The community college dual enrollment programs are sometimes aimed at helping at-risk students develop career interests but they can work perfectly fine for gifted high school or middle school students who want more enrichment and advanced course work too. And then some students are prepared to sail over high school, and so traditional early college programs are a great option for them. All of these are great options. And broadly, they help the public and the educational establishment see that just because you are 13-14 years old doesn't mean you have to be in 8th grade, learning a set group of things that only 8th graders are supposed to learn. Better to use all a community's resources.

Standards vs. Personalized Education

I apologize for the lapse of time between my last post and now. I'm deep in the weeds on book writing at the moment, which is always fun. It is the experience that feels most like "flow" for me -- the word that references being completely engrossed in one's work and unaware of time. I start in the morning, look at the clock and it is 4pm. Good stuff.

But anyway, I am emerging a bit tonight! I just read an interesting essay by Ronald Wolk in Education Week arguing that the pursuit of common, high standards is a waste of time. You can read the essay by following this link. Instead, education needs to be more personalized. On one level this is a very appealing idea, especially as we completely leave the factory era. Once, standardization was a virtue, everyone focused on the same thing. Now, every major employer seems to be searching for people who "think outside the box." Personalized education also recognizes that all children learn differently, and at different paces. In the context of this blog, personalized education recognizes that some children learn a lot faster than others, and that age has no more to do with what work you're ready for than height.

On the other hand... after reading Wendy Kopp's A Chance To Make History, I'm a little wary (as she is) of silver bullets in education in general. Personalized education is good, and so is some amount of testing. It's really hard to solve a problem if you can't even diagnose it, and Wolk's complete aversion to testing is a good way to create a world of no standards. Also, does he think that top-down teaching is even the norm anymore? Education schools everywhere are gripped by a "child-centered" approach to learning where we all discover the Pythagorean theorem on our own. That's one idea, or you can recognize that children don't know much, and need information crammed into their little brains. That's a big reason I read books -- to learn things I don't know. It's also why I attend speeches, which is roughly the equivalent of teacher lectures.

So my general thought is... all things in moderation. Yes, we need more personalization. We also need high standards, and probably some assessments too. All of this can work together to create a better education system than we have now.

The Write Start and Rip the Page

Long time Gifted Exchange readers know that nurturing the talents of writers is one of my biggest interests within gifted education. Often, we focus on talented young mathematicians as the obvious geniuses among us, and schools in general are more prepared to do acceleration in math than in other subjects. But good writing also requires training, discipline and challenge.

So I thought I'd share two books that crossed my desk over the past year (after their publisher, Trumpeter, sent them to me). The Write Start, by Jennifer Hallissy, features a series of activities designed to make young children comfortable expressing themselves in words. These include everything from writing love notes and press releases to making scrapbooks. Each activity can be adapted for four levels of young children: scribblers (very little ones), spellers (those who can write their letters), storytellers (those who can express ideas in writing), and scholars ("writers who have also become readers"). Hallissy is a pediatric occupational therapist, and believes that pen/pencil/crayon writing is a very important brain development step for young children. Since I learned writing and reading back in 1984 with an early computer program called Writing to Read, I tend to think that learning to write on computers is fine too. But either way, the more children come to believe that writing is fun, the better.

What happens once they get older? That's where Rip the Page! by Karen Benke comes in. This book for 8-12 year olds is billed as "adventures in creative writing." Children do various activities such as re-writing cliches, writing fortunes for Chinese fortune cookies, composing acrostic poems, writing a biography for a color, and writing in the same style as different poets. All can spark the imagination, and hopefully will start young writers in creating their own longer stories.

How have you nurtured your young writers?

Disability, Asperger's and software coding

I read a fascinating piece over at ZDNET asking this question: Does Asperger's make you a better software coder?

Adults with Asperger's, like adults with many kinds of disabilities, face discrimination in the job market. An interviewer may be turned off by a lack of eye contact or an inability to read social cues. And in office situations that call for a lot of group interaction, these may be real problems.

But what if you're interviewing for a job that requires profound attention to detail, and a methodical ability to follow exact guidelines? Then the personality traits associated with Asperger's might actually be a benefit. I don't know how this winds up working in real companies, but it's a good reminder that what is perceived as a disability is sometimes just a difference. None of us are normal, when you think about it.

California gifted programs on the block

Flexibility sounds like a good thing. In tight times, local school districts need to be able to use their stretched funds to cover their most pressing needs. But as anyone who's followed the issue of gifted education will suspect, educating highly intelligent children is rarely deemed a pressing need.

According to a recent New York Times piece (done in conjunction with The Bay Citizen), in California, a quick glance would make someone think that California funding for gifted education had only fallen a bit in recent years: from $46.8 million in 2008-2009 to $44.2 million in 2009-2010. But, as the article notes, "those numbers obscure a more important change: in February 2009, the California Legislature adopted a plan that allowed public schools to divert state money for gifted children to “any educational purpose,” including closing budget deficits."

And the diversion happened like a stampede. According to the article, "A study by the state Legislative Analyst’s Office, released last May, found that 68 percent of the 231 school districts surveyed had shifted resources away from education for gifted students since lawmakers approved the measure."

So there we go. Left to their own devices, only 32% of districts actually think that money appropriated for gifted education should go to gifted education. I know statistics like this are why many gifted education advocates believe that the only thing that will make gifted education a priority is a national mandate with teeth, similar to the one that exists for students with disabilities. As a generally fiscally conservative person, I'm always wary of mandates, and arguments that the things that I think the government should spend money on are somehow more worthy than things other people think the government should spend money on. Still, statistics like this are incredibly frustrating. It is hard to envision a more shortsighted policy than cutting gifted programs because, hey, that seems like the easiest way to solve the problem of paying this month's electricity bill.

Long term, this mindset will need to be attacked on a few fronts. First, gifted education advocates need to work with teachers colleges to expose more teachers to the needs and diversities of gifted students, and ways of meeting their needs. Right now, too many educators see gifted education as something for, as Mara Sapon-Shevin once wrote, "the kids with disposable income."

Second, gifted education itself needs to be yanked away from a reliance on short pull-out programs -- the worst of which involve doing something like taking the gifted kids to a science museum on a Friday when no one else gets to go. Everyone can benefit from enrichment and field trips, and 45 minutes of pull-out twice a week do little to truly challenge a gifted child. Acceleration is a great idea. So is broad based grouping by ability (or readiness, as we like to say here). Gifted education should not be seen as a reward. It needs to be seen as an educational intervention for kids who need it.

And finally, we need some high profile champions. Surely, some folks in the California legislature, in politics generally, in industry, in the arts, in journalism, were in gifted programs as young people and saw benefits from them. If this sounds like you, please step up and let the world know!

Grouping ... by distance

I studied abroad for a semester in Australia back in college, so I can attest that it is a rather vast country. A bus trip from Alice Springs to Darwin took several days, much of it through a vast and strange landscape filled with rocks, some desert scrub, and not much else. Of course, as in America, people live in the craziest outposts, and they have kids. And the kids need to be educated. And some children in small towns around Australia are gifted. How can the education system meet their needs?

One approach is distance learning. An article in the Central Western Daily called "Distance no barrier for gifted scholars" discusses the growth of the xsel Virtual Selective High School. Drawing students from an area the size of Germany, they can listen to lectures, and interact with teachers and classmates.

I think this is a great development, though I know that distance learning is often hard to get right. There is something very human about feeling closer to people when we see them face to face. I would imagine it is hard, as a teacher, not to feel more attuned to the children in front of you, rather than those elsewhere. On the other hand, as virtual conferencing software gets better, it can actually be done to a point where it looks like the people really are in front of you. It remains to be seen whether better technology will trick our brains into believing we are really there, but gifted education is a great thing to start with. After all, if the children aren't served virtually, they probably won't be served at all, unless they're willing to leave home for boarding school.

Is there a difference between smart and gifted?

As part of writing about different families for Gifted Exchange, I got an interesting email from Suzanne a few weeks ago. She wrote that she had "the unique perspective of raising gifted children and being married to a gifted adult but not being gifted myself." As she said, "Don't get me wrong, I am perfectly intelligent. I am able to recognize that my mind does not absorb information or make the same kind of leaps theirs do."

I found this curious and asked for more details. What did she think the difference was? "In my house, the difference between being perfectly intelligent and gifted comes out in things like processing speed," she said. "I tend to look at a problem and think about it and think about it some more. Maybe pull out some paper and a calculator or a ruler or some other tool. Whereas my husband will walk up and jiggle something or move two things around and BAM! It's solved. I'll get the job done just not as quickly or elegantly."

As for her 5-year-old, "I've noticed that my daughter is more like my husband in problem solving and processing speed," she wrote. "While I've been typing this email, my children have been in the next room watching 'The Cat in the Hat' on PBS. There is some theme music that pops up every time the Cat in the Hat does, it's maybe two measures of music. I heard my daughter say 'Hmm' and come into the room where I am and within 10 notes on the piano she was playing the theme music."

What do you think, GE readers? What is the difference between "perfectly intelligent" and gifted? Do you have a mixed family?

Narrowing the Range

Over in Batavia, Illinois, the school board is considering a curious gifted education proposal. The idea, according to this article, is to get rid of the pull-out program (basically, 50 minutes of advanced math per day) and instead, have one gifted class per grade level.

So far, so good -- here at Gifted Exchange, we definitely prefer homogeneous grouping to enrichment pull-outs, and expanding the gifted concept to mean more than just math.

But then things get interesting. Because these gifted classes aren't actually going to be homogeneous. According to the article, "Each 'gifted' classroom would include all the gifted children in that school at that grade level, plus a mixture of high-achieving and average students. Low-achieving students would not be assigned to those classrooms." The purpose of this, according to Associate Superintendent Jan Wright is to "narrow the range of abilities in those classrooms." But, I guess, not be too narrow.

My first thought is that this was odd, but the more I think about it, the more it seems like a relatively reasonable compromise. In this era of fiscal tightening, no gifted education proposal will be accepted if it costs more money. All must be budget neutral. If there aren't enough gifted kids in any grade to fill a full class, in order to be budget neutral, other kids would have to be assigned in. But by aiming the median slightly higher, you'd avoid some of the challenges of meeting a more diverse range of abilities. A full-time gifted class, even if the median isn't in the gifted range, is still better than pull-out.

That said, there are other options for a school district that could be budget neutral too. If there are only enough gifted kids for half a class, you can combine grade levels (so a 3-4th grade gifted class -- and maybe a 3-4th "regular" class too if that makes the numbers come out right... ) Or you could combine 3-4-5th grades, even if it meant a slightly bigger class size. I'm curious what Gifted Exchange readers think.

"He wished he could be in pullout all the time"

(Laura's note: I'm continuing with posts from parents of gifted children. Today's post comes from Monica, a mom of a 10-year-old boy who is in the local public school's GATE program, and a 4-year-old preschooler. She discusses the difficulty of advocating for early kindergarten, especially for an oldest child. You're new to schooling, and you know that the educators you are meeting have much more experience with schools and grade placement than you do. But you also know your child better than they do. Below are excerpts from two emails).

To: Laura
From: Monica

I think that parents really need to feel more empowered in making decisions for their children’s education.  I was not and relied on the assistant superintendent for my local school district to say that yes they did have other children who started kindergarten early, but they weren’t emotionally ready.  She didn’t mention anything about a law that was just passed to allow for early entrance to kindergarten, and I didn’t dig up this fact until later. 
 
Her comment made me start to question my own gut feeling that my son was ready for kindergarten at 4. My son could read before starting preschool at 3 and knew basic math facts and got along with other children- even to the point of going up to complete strangers and asking them questions or inviting kids over to play.  So with a December birthday, my son entered kindergarten at 5 years, 8 months and without going into too much detail, he wasn’t in the right educational environment.  His kindergarten teacher knew my son could read and so she had the reading specialist use the DIBELS assessment on him (they had to go up to the 6th grade level…at least that was as far as they could go with the materials they had). 
 
The principal at the school (who did the kindergarten assessment and knew my son could read since he read part of the assessment to him), was very cooperative and wanted to help the following year.  Grade acceleration for reading/language arts was decided on (he went to a 2nd grade teacher in the morning for those subjects and went back to 1st for math, science, and social studies).  This wasn’t an ideal situation as both of the teachers were new and were out quite a bit for in-service/mentoring and he was still unhappy.  He would go to the nurse to get out of class and then just not want to go into school at all. 
 
I pressed the principal the spring of that year to get my son evaluated for the ALPHA program (the district’s self-contained gifted classroom for 3rd/4th grades combined).  The school psychologist did an IQ and achievement test and then there was a meeting with teachers, and the district's gifted consultant.  As a result of that meeting it was decided that my son was to skip 2nd grade and stay in a regular 3rd grade classroom with a gifted pullout once a week for a few hours.  The request for going into ALPHA was shot down, because of my son’s writing ability (didn’t expand on his thoughts, using the RARE method was torture for him).  The gifted consultant said that there was lots more writing involved in the ALPHA class and that he would feel overwhelmed.  She also had me work with him over the summer on 2nd grade math and science to fill in the “gaps”. 
 
Third grade was fine, but still my son wasn’t challenged in math or reading as far as I could tell.  The GT pullout was mainly nice enrichment activities, which he loved doing and he said to me often that he wished he could be in the pullout all the time.  At the end of 3rd grade the principal and GT pullout teacher (who was also the librarian) recommended that he go to the ALPHA program for 4th grade.  That is where he finally met some kids who were more like him. 
 
The teacher for that program had some knowledge (took coursework) in gifted kids and I felt confident that he would enjoy the class.  This year he is in 5th grade in the GATE program and has one teacher with a Masters in gifted education and another who is very gifted herself and has gifted children.  They are differentiating a bit more (mostly in math) and he seems to enjoy his classes.

To: Laura
From: Monica

After writing that lengthy e-mail yesterday about my son’s educational story, I got to thinking more about advice to other parents.  I know I gave you one piece of advice about parents feeling empowered to make decisions and with that I should have mentioned being informed enough about what the school provides in the way of programs (my son’s school did a poor job of communicating what was available in the beginning).  They should also investigate other online resources to get ideas of what other options there are even if their school doesn’t provide them.  This knowledge is important when going into meetings with teachers and educational professionals. 
 
Go into school meetings being informed and realize that most teachers do not have extensive knowledge about gifted education.  I myself who studied to be a high school biology teacher only took one class called Exceptional Children and there was only one mention, I think, of the characteristics of gifted children, and perhaps education options that were available to gifted learners.  Granted this was back in 1994, but from what I’ve read in other recent gifted blog posts, not much has changed. 
 
I know that most parents don’t want to seem pushy, but you can go into a meeting with confidence and work on an educational plan with a team mentality.  I also found that e-mailing right after to say thank you to the principal, teachers, and others who attended the meeting  was helpful in getting things accomplished. 

Family stories: Private school guilt...and acceptance

(Laura's note: From time to time I'll be running posts telling stories from families of gifted kids. We can all learn from each other -- about parenting, schooling, and doing what's right for our children. Some of these will be told by the parents, and some will feature me interviewing the parents or children. Today's post is the former, and comes courtesy of "Ginger," mom of SJ. She talks about her feelings on choosing the right school. Thanks to folks who have already emailed me about being part of this. I'm at lvanderkam@yahoo.com).

Private School Guilt... And Acceptance

By Ginger

SJ is now 7 and in second grade. From the time he was 2.25 until 4.5, he went to preschool full-time at a local private school while my husband and I both worked. He loved it there, and we liked it too -- great teachers, approachable director, happy kid. A few months after he started in the 2-year-old class, one of his teachers told us she suspected he could read already. We already knew he was pretty bright and had a great memory -- he knew all his letters and could count to 10 at about 18 months. But, sure enough, he was decoding words, and even started spontaneously spelling them with magnetic letters on the fridge. As he got older, we also discovered that he was an extremely quick learner in math, and able to grasp complicated concepts almost intuitively. The school did lots to encourage his abilities and gave him plenty of opportunities to work ahead.

After our second son was born, when SJ was 4.5, I decided to leave the corporate world so I could spend more time with the kids. Instead of having SJ continue at the full-time private school, I could now send him to public school because I would be available to pick him up when he finished at 1:15 or 2:15 in the afternoon.

I should mention also that my husband and I REALLY wanted to believe in the state education system. We did not want to be one of "those" couples who talk out of one side of our mouths about equal opportunity and fixing our public schools while we send our own kids to a private school. So, we wanted to give the local school a chance, and enrolled SJ in kindergarten there.

The first indication I had that something was wrong was when I started volunteering in SJ's class one morning per week. SJ's behavior was not good, and it was so unlike how he was at home. He would not join in at circle time, preferring to horse around under a desk or go read a book or otherwise do his own thing. I chalked it up to him playing up because his mother was there, but when I discussed it with his teacher, she confirmed that he was like that much of the time -- distracted and not wanting to be part of the group. He had a hard time completing simple tasks -- things we knew he could do in his sleep. He loathed his homework, and complained about having to do things over and over and over again when he already knew how to do them. His teacher, to her credit, realized his behavior problems were due to boredom, but firmly told us he would not do well in school if he could not act more maturely and conform to the group.

Then he moved to first grade. His teacher was young, and well-educated but not very experienced. After a couple of months, we had a parent-teacher conference with her, which went poorly. We were expecting that she would have something to say about SJ's abilities and achievements (by this time he was reading at 4th-grade level and learning about fractions at home) but instead she focused on his behavior -- distracted, chatty, unable to get his class work finished on time. She told us he had tested at first grade level for reading and had mastered first grade math concepts. There was such a mismatch from the boy we saw at home and the boy we read about in the report card; either she wasn't testing him as far as he could go, or he wasn't showing her what he could do at all. We told her we thought that he could do more, and that his distractedness in class was due to boredom. We told her the kinds of books he was reading at home, and gave her examples of the kinds of math problems he was doing at home. We asked her if she could try pushing him a little, and see if he responded. She agreed and said that later in the year she would give him some extra science projects and harder math. All she ever did was to give him a second grade math workbook, which he could do ON TOP OF all the boring first grade homework he had to do. Just what a bored, unmotivated kid needs -- more homework.

After getting nowhere with the teacher, we approached the school psychologist for some help. We told her we thought our son was gifted and asked if he could be tested through the school. She said they only tested children who were doing poorly and/or showed signs of a learning disability or psychological problem, not kids who were doing fine as our son was. She did recommend an outside educational psychologist if we wanted to do it on our own, but it was going to cost a lot and although we now only had one income, we didn't qualify for assistance.

Then the school board in our district announced that, due to budget problems, the following school year it would be firing hundreds of teachers and increasing class sizes to 30+ for K-2 classes. Teachers who were having problems educating 20 students of vastly differing abilities were now going to be asked to cope with 30 or more. We were really disappointed with the public school experience so far, and this was the last straw.

We're not pushy parents, but we do want our kids to fulfill their potential, and most of all we want them to love learning! Our son was so bored, so resistant to homework, so underachieving. We couldn't bear to see him so disillusioned at such a young age. So, about halfway through the year we decided to go back to talk with the director of the private school where he had gone to preschool, to see what she could do for us. She was very accommodating and told us many parents of bright children had come to them hoping for some flexibility and a chance to advance faster. She assured us that SJ would be challenged at her school. We applied to enroll him on the spot.

The director had him shadow with a second grade class, and we talked about the possibility of a grade skip. In the end, we decided against the skip, because we thought he might have a lot to cope with in moving to a new school, and because he was already one of the youngest in his class. Also, the director said they often worked faster than the standard grade level because they found the kids could handle it.

SJ started second grade at his new school at the beginning of this school year, and he is doing so much better! He is no longer so distracted in class (although he is still a bit chatty -- he's a friendly guy. :) ) He is getting his class work done and participating in the group, and his grades are excellent in all subjects. He takes responsibility for completing and handing in his own homework, with no pushing/cajoling/bribing from me -- a MAJOR accomplishment for him. His teacher started an after-school Math Club for him and a few other kids to learn more advanced concepts, which he LOVES and is so proud of. There are one or two other highly gifted children in his class, and suddenly he has a little competition, which is also spurring him to work harder. He has made some good friends. And, most importantly, he has his enthusiasm for learning back.

When we first discussed it with him, SJ liked the idea of switching back to the private school. He kept telling us he was bored and already knew everything they were making him repeat over and over again in first grade. We told him this would help, but warned him it would be challenging and that he would need to work harder and really show them what he could do. He replied that he wanted to do harder work. He was sad to leave his friends of two years at the old school, but seemed excited to be going to a place where they would expect more from him. And I am so pleased at how he has responded, truly living up to his potential.

We hope to be able to keep SJ here through middle school, and his younger brother too. We love that it's small (<200 kids, K-8) and that we can talk to the teachers and director any time about making changes to our son's schooling. We love the extra activities they offer as part of the regular curriculum such as drama, Spanish and music, and the extra-extras like chess club and all kinds of sporting activities. We love that there are only 20 kids per teacher, and that the classrooms are well-stocked. They also provide healthy snacks and lunches as part of the tuition. Even though it's expensive, we are so glad we made the switch. I do feel a little pang of guilt that we opted out of the public system, but hey, my kids come first.

The Indiana Academy, budget cuts and what we do with an education

It's no secret that state budgets are strapped these days. While Indiana is doing better than its neighbors (see Illinois's recent tax hike), the state is exploring areas to cut, and education budgets should probably be no more sacrosanct than anything else.

So I was not surprised to see this recent article from the Star-Press that my high school, the Indiana Academy for Science, Mathematics and the Humanities, a 2-year residential school for gifted high school juniors and seniors, is facing a 15% budget cut. As a generally fiscally conservative person, I'm always wary of making arguments that programs I care about are somehow more deserving than others. But I want to talk a little bit about the value of specialized secondary schools, and why the questions some of the lawmakers asked about the Academy are probing the wrong vein.

First, gifted education, as we often talk about here, is not a reward for hard-working kids. Hard work should certainly be rewarded, but gifted education is something different. It is an educational intervention for people who require it.

Regular high schools -- even good ones -- find it very difficult to serve highly gifted young people. I attended Clay High School in South Bend, Indiana for my freshman and sophomore years, and it was certainly not a failing institution. One or two kids went to Ivy League schools most years. There were a handful of AP classes. They were also reasonably accommodating to me. I was allowed to accelerate 2 years in math, and would have worked out an arrangement for studying at Notre Dame or IUSB had I stayed there. After I had a showdown with my sophomore English teacher about various things, the department head used his planning period to do an independent study with me. He taught me grammar, introduced me to the classics of American literature, and definitely honed my writing craft. But I was still miserable. I actually made hash marks on the back of one of my notebooks to count through the 180 days of my sophomore year. I felt like being smart wasn't particularly valued, and "smart" was my only identity. I was still not challenged enough.

So that was my position when I started at the Indiana Academy in the fall of 1995. It was not perfect either. There were various controversies over administration, over rules that were more of the CYA variety than about rationality. Some classes were better than others. Some students were not emotionally prepared to live away from home, and in the early years of a school sometimes people enroll who are not prepared. But I learned to work. Hard. I would scribble lines in my journal about my brain stretching. I failed at things and had to learn to try harder. Because my peers were mostly academically inclined as well, we did not all have to fit into the "smart kid" role, and we learned new things about our identities. Thanks to the crucible of the Academy, not only was I admitted to every college where I applied, when I showed up at Princeton I felt prepared.

Note: Princeton is not in Indiana. I mention this because the article quotes Rep. Peggy Welch of Bloomington as asking "Do most of these students, after they graduate from the academy, do they go to Indiana colleges?" She asked a representative from the school, "Are you tracking them? Do they stay in Indiana for their jobs or are we losing them?"

Welch continued that "Obviously we should be supporting it (the academy)...But I think it would be helpful to build the case, or, if we find they are kind of leaving the state or not returning to the state after they go to an Ivy League school, track that to see what we can do differently to have them land in Indiana."

I understand that politically, it is easier to sell education as an investment than as an expenditure. But staying in state for college is a silly metric on which to judge a high school. By this definition, the Academy "failed" by sending me to Princeton, and would have succeeded if I'd stayed right there and gone to any college in Indiana.

Returning to the state to work is a trickier matter. I know that this is the same mindset that has gifted education coordinators selling their programs by saying "these kids will save us in the future! These are our future medical researchers, presidents, inventors..." Maybe. I think it's the wrong argument though. Some gifted kids do amazing things. Others don't -- or at least not the kinds of things you'd send a press release about. But as noted above, gifted education is best understood not as an investment in our future, but as an educational intervention in the here and now. Many students with disabilities will not go on to win Nobel prizes, yet this doesn't stop us from spending the money necessary to meet their needs so they can receive an appropriate education. Likewise with intellectual giftedness. It is simply humane to give all children an education that challenges them to the extent of their abilities, in an environment with their intellectual peers.

I would bet that the majority of Indiana Academy alums do go to Indiana colleges and stay in Indiana -- and these stats are worth tracking -- but even if no Academy alum goes to an Indiana college or returns to Indiana to work, the Academy gives gifted children the education they deserve.

No more than anyone else. But no less either.

Chinese mothers, intelligence, and parenting

Probably many of you have by now read Amy Chua's essay in the Wall Street Journal, adapted from her book Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother, on "Why Chinese Mothers Are Superior." She claims that western parents are squishy, and that one of the reason "Chinese" mothers (a certain archetype, and certainly not encompassing all or only Chinese parents) get high achievement from their children is that they demand it.

There's a lot to like about "Chinese" mothering. Namely, you assume that your children are strong. They are smart and capable kids. While I don't agree that motivational insults are a good idea (the world is not going to be a supportive place -- why shouldn't parents be kind?) accepting failure as the best the kid can do isn't a good idea either. Chua also has a great point that nothing is fun until you're good at it. You get good at things by working. But kids often don't want to work. This is where a parent steps in to force the early stages (though again, it's hard to know why only piano and violin are considered worthy things to be good at).

Chua's essay has sparked a lot of controversy, and I'm really curious what Gifted Exchange readers think. But one of the most interesting commentaries (of course) is from that gadfly Charles Murray. He blogs that "large numbers of talented children everywhere would profit from Chua’s approach, and instead are frittering away their gifts—they’re nice kids, not brats, but they are also self-indulgent and inclined to make excuses for themselves. There are also large numbers of children who are not especially talented, but would do a lot better in school if their parents applied the same intense home supplements to their classroom work."

That said, Murray notes, here's a point that Chua doesn't necessarily raise. Her kids were going to do pretty well regardless (indeed, Chua's more indulgent husband seems to have been raised in a different fashion, and yet he's incredibly successful too). As Murray calculates Chua's children's genes:

"Mother: able to get into Harvard (a much better indicator of her IQ than the magna cum laude in economics that she got there); Executive Editor of the Law Review at Harvard Law School.

Father: Summa cum laude from Princeton and magna cum laude from Harvard Law School, now a chaired professor at Yale Law School.

Guess what. Amy Chua has really smart kids. They would be really smart if she had put them up for adoption at birth with the squishiest postmodern parents. They would not have turned out exactly the same under their softer tutelage, but they would probably be getting into Harvard and Princeton as well. Similarly, if Amy Chua had adopted two children at birth who turned out to have measured childhood IQs at the 20th percentile, she would have struggled to get them through high school, no matter how fiercely she battled for them."

There is probably something to this as well. Parenting and genes both play a role, though since they often come in a package, it's hard to tease out what matters.

Gifted Exchange in 2011

Happy New Year to everyone! Gifted Exchange is now entering its 7th calendar year, having started in fall 2005. We've covered a lot of topics and grown steadily in readership. We had a rather exciting milestone of being mentioned in the Washington Post this past year, and hopefully that's the start of great things to come.

When I started blogging here, I was a young newlywed who was interested in gifted education more because of my own experiences growing up, and the opportunities I had to write about education in the mainstream media. I am increasingly less young (happens to the best of us) and now I am interested in gifted education in part because my family has grown in the past seven calendar years. I am now raising two very bright and curious young boys, and as I start to think about what their educations will entail, I am even more interested in these issues.

As such, one of my goals for 2011 is to profile more families. I want to talk with parents and find out: What works? What doesn't? What challenges have you overcome, and which ones are you still facing? What conversations and negotiations with teachers and principals have proved most fruitful? How have you incorporated other resources in your community? How do you deal with discipline issues? Sibling issues? Disabilities? How do you talk about college and careers? How do you nurture creativity or deal with the child who's into everything? Or just one thing, passionately?

Anyway, let's start the conversation. If you'd like to share some of your wisdom with the Gifted Exchange audience, please let me know. My email is lvanderkam@yahoo.com. I'd prefer to use real names but I can be flexible about that. We'll set up a time to talk, or do an email Q&A or whatever we decide works best. Thanks for considering it.

The gift of a cardboard box

The Wall Street Journal has an interesting article this morning from Sue Shellenbarger about what makes kids creative. According to Kyung Hee Kim, an assistant professor of educational psychiatry at the College of William and Mary, American kids' scores on a commonly used creativity test fell steadily from 1990 to 2008. (An example of a question on such a test: A child sees 6 boxes arranged to look like a T. She is asked to list all the things this figure could represent. A common idea would be "the letter T." A less common idea might be "stones in an anti-gravity statue!")

Of course, some folks are quick to point to the increased use of standardized tests, and (the story goes) rote learning as crowding out time for creativity. But I think it's not just what we do in school that discourages creativity. Every Christmas as I'm shopping for toys, I'm struck by how mindless many toys have become. Selling Legos or Lincoln Logs in sets produces higher margins than just selling them as buckets of blocks, so that's what companies do. We buy toys that are associated with characters in TV shows, which then provide ready story lines for children. Will Cinderella turn into a pioneer woman who builds a hut out of Star Wars Lego sets? Let's hope so. But not hold our breath.

But it's not just the toys. It's also the amount of time children spend watching TV and playing video games. Games can encourage creativity -- sometimes. But they don't leave as much to the imagination as a book.

I'm not sure what's to be done about that. We're trying to limit our kids' exposure to video games and TV, and encourage coloring and building with blocks (and cardboard boxes) and the like. I'm curious what other readers of this blog do to nurture their children's creativity.

What makes a good teacher? Ask the kids

The Gates Foundation has been undertaking a multi-year study of teacher effectiveness, trying to learn why some teachers' students excel and others don't. How can you evaluate teachers? Should you just look at test scores?

Preliminary findings from the Gates study suggest that there may be one underused approach: ask the students (as highlighted in this Minneapolis Star-Tribune article).

The Gates study had students watch teachers explaining various concepts. The students were asked about the teachers' effectiveness, and were also tested.

It turns out that, as Justice Potter Stewart once said of obscenity, students know effective teaching when they see it. The study also found that a teacher's past success in raising student achievement on state tests is the best predictor of doing so in the future, and that the teachers who demonstrate the best value-added scores on state tests are rated as most effective by students in explaining concepts.

It's a fascinating finding, and suggests that the so-called 360 degree feedback model, in which a person is evaluated by everyone he or she works with, could have some merit in education too. In general, teachers are mostly evaluated by principals, but this suggests that student feedback on effectiveness can also be meaningful.

The opposite of red-shirting

For the past few years, it's become quite popular to "red-shirt" kindergartners, especially boys. The idea is that if kids start school a little later, they'll be academically more advanced and do better (and kids who are bigger and more coordinated will do better athletically). In some cases, this may be true. School districts have been quite open to following parental directive on this front.

They have been less open, however, to going the other way, and letting a child start kindergarten early. I'm not quite sure why, but even children who just miss the fall cut-off and can demonstrate, say, an ability to read at a much higher grade level, encounter an uphill battle getting an exception.

So I'm glad to see that Colorado is at least creating a pathway for parents to request an early acceleration. According to this article in the Canon City Daily Record, parents can request testing, get a recommendation from a preschool teacher and make their case. The school district is quick to point out that only children scoring in the 98th percentile or higher should do this, but at least they are acknowledging that in some cases it's a good idea!

Obviously, in some cases it isn't too. Many gifted children rather enjoy preschool because it tends to be more flexible, and less about everyone in the class doing the same thing at the same time. But starting kindergarten early is one of the best ways to do acceleration, because it gets it out of the way early, and then (barring the need for more acceleration... which, of course, can happens with PG kids!) children can keep going along with the same cohort.

"Inching in the right direction"

That's the verdict from the National Center for Education Statistics on the US results on the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA). Every three years, countries around the world have thousands of 15-year-olds participate in this internationally benchmarked exam. The idea is to see how students stack up on an international basis.

As usual, the US is not exactly on top of the heap. 15-year-olds boosted their scores in science, coming in right at the middle of OECD countries, while in math, US students score a bit lower. (In reading, the US is above average for OECD countries, so that is good).

What's interesting to me is that our mediocre scores are not the result of having a heterogeneous population, including many English language learners. A McKinsey study that came out a little over a year ago found that the top 10% of US scorers on the PISA don't stack up well against the top 10% in other countries either. One thing we do stack up well on? We spend a lot per pupil. For years, America has been focused on inputs (funding, small class sizes, etc.) rather than outputs, and these international comparisons always show it.

Teach Like a Champion... and issues even champions face

After many positive recommendations, I finally downloaded Doug Lemov's Teach Like a Champion to my Kindle, and I've been rather enjoying it. Lemov, the managing director of Uncommon Schools, has spent quite a bit of time video-taping excellent teachers. He defines excellent teachers as those whose at-risk students outperform more privileged ones. He studies the tapes like a football coach, and has honed their craft down into 49 replicable techniques. As he points out, it's one thing to say that teachers should have high expectations for their students. It's another to figure out what that looks like at 8:30AM on Monday.

The techniques are not rocket science, but are also dazzling when you think about them. For instance, he advocates cold-calling on students. All well and good. But how do you cold call? Effective teachers ask the question first, then call a student's name ("What is 8 times 3? [Pause] James?"). If you call a student's name first and then ask the question, only the student in question does the work in his head. If you ask the question first, then call on someone, all of the students do the work in anticipation of being asked for the answer. This is a little thing, but makes a massive difference in class engagement. Another important technique is "Right is right." When teachers ask classes a question, they often reward a partially right answer by "rounding up." That is, they supply extra information that the student didn't give. Why not say, "I like where you're going with that," and then ask the student to elaborate? Near and dear to my heart, he also chides teachers for engaging in the whole debate of whether slang is a cultural difference that should be celebrated. Proper English, he says, is the "language of opportunity." Kids can speak how they want at home. At school, they should be trained in speaking in a way that will open doors for employment and college.

You can certainly see how a teacher employing Lemov's techniques would have complete control of a class and be able to guide students toward discovering and mastering concepts. However, as I'm reading the book, I can't help but think that all of these techniques work wonderfully when the students are all working at close to the same level. Lemov advocates checking for mastery among kids of all abilities to see how it's going, and he suggests differentiating by cold-calling on your advanced students with harder questions, and having bonus questions ready for people who can master work after three examples rather than ten. But what if the kid already knows the material at the beginning of class? Circling back until 80% of the class has mastered something is incredibly frustrating for the kid who doesn't need half an hour to learn how to round to a certain decimal spot. Sometimes, gifted kids cope by tuning out and studying something else in their desk -- reading a book for example. But most of Lemov's techniques are designed to stop kids from opting out. This makes perfect sense for kids who are defiant or struggling. But not for those who mastered the material long ago.

This is why schools need homogeneous grouping (or "readiness grouping" as we call it here). Such grouping best leverages the talents of great teachers by making sure they can push everyone in a class and not spend a disproportionate amount of time on people who need more help. It also makes life easier on teachers who may still be learning how to teach effectively. Even champions are going to struggle with a class that encompasses 5 or more different grade levels.

A sense of entitlement?

In recent days, Canada's Globe and Mail newspaper has been doing a series called The Gifted Child. The paper capped the series off with perspectives from three teachers on what teaching gifted kids is like. I applaud The Globe and Mail for covering this issue. But reading these teachers' comments, there is certainly a negative undercurrent. Consider this from a Toronto high school teacher:

"A challenge that my colleagues and I often lament is the sense of entitlement amongst our gifted students. They have been told on countless occasions that they are intellectually superior and often this notion is reaffirmed at home. This may result in difficulties interacting with their non-gifted peers as well as issues when they realize that not all gifted students are gifted in all areas."

An elementary school teacher notes that gifted kids are often forgotten in classrooms, then mentions that socializing with other children can be a problem:

"It then becomes the teacher’s job to teach gifted children (and the rest of the class) to be considerate, respectful and mindful of the varying abilities that each other possess."

Then there is this from an Ottawa high school teacher:

"Often parents will expect that once their child is diagnosed as “gifted” that their child will excel in all areas of the curriculum; this is not likely and parents’ expectations have to be managed."

So there we have it. Maybe I'm a little sensitive, but I read in these quotes a message that gifted kids and their parents need to be taken down a notch, or "managed," if you will. If you're gifted in one area, maybe you aren't in another. And even if you are globally, then probably you're not very socially adept or respectful.

I'm sure this is true for some kids. But there are kids of all kinds who are insufferable. There are probably quite a few "normal" kids who could stand to learn to interact better with gifted kids -- not teasing them for quirky interests, for example. Difficulties in socializing go across the board. And given the rather low level of expectations in many schools, it is quite possible that a parent's expectation that a child will excel in all areas of the curriculum won't need to be revised downwards.

Broadly, though, there is a leveling streak that runs through educational culture. My personal experience is that many families of highly gifted kids don't have enough of a sense of entitlement. Parents think they should just be grateful, rather than demand an individualized program or acceleration or other accommodations.

Of course, the irony of this is that the easiest way to combat any sense of entitlement is to match a gifted child up with work that is challenging enough that it finally stumps him. A child who skips three grades is probably going to feel less intellectually superior than one stuck in too-easy grade level classes. But too few schools and teachers seem to take this view.

Davidson Fellow profile: Laurie Rumker

We're still highlighting some of the 2010 Davidson Fellows! Today's interview is with Laurie Rumker, a student at Oregon Episcopal School in Portland. Her science project dealt with the treatment of river contaminants. You can read more about it here.


Gifted Exchange: How did you come up with your topic?

Rumker: I grew up outside of Eugene, Oregon, an environmentally-savvy city, within a nature-loving family. Our regular camping trips, hikes, forest bike rides and other outdoor activities taught me to recognize the resources that nature offers and instilled in me a desire to protect, restore and preserve them. I imagine my particular affinity for water and water systems came from living on the banks of the McKenzie River, which I frequently skipped stones over and pondered the world alongside. As a delegate from my school to an International Collaboration Project focused on wetlands conservation in the summer of 2006, I joined students from LA and Australia to learn about the complex and fragile ecosystems that water bodies support. All of these experiences influenced my selection of a research topic for this project, in addition to my experience with microorganisms and biodegradation in earlier independent research projects. Because of my concern for our environment and affinity for water systems, I began reviewing methods to confront contamination in water systems. I became interested in organoclay because of its use on the Willamette River in my hometown of Portland. As I looked further into the chemical mechanism organoclay utilizes to contain pollutants, I began to see a hole in the experimental research conducted on organoclay prior to its implementation: the possibility for surfactant biodegradation.

GE: As you were doing your project, were there any skills or things you'd learned earlier that turned out to be important?

Rumker: Organizational, trouble-shooting, creative and communication abilities are, I believe, the most important aspects of good researchers. I am continually striving to improve myself in those areas. Thankfully, those are all skills that one can learn and work on in many activities beyond research: in team sports, in art and music and even in daily conversation and negotiation with others.

GE: What was the most fun part of your project?

Rumker: My favorite part of the project was sharing it: telling others about my project premise, results and implications in formal research presentations at research competitions like ISEF and at the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality annual meeting for the specific Superfund clean-up site that inspired my work and in informal conversations with interested non-science individuals and my young researching peers. It is through presenting my work that I really see its applications and advancement of scientific knowledge coming to fruition.

GE: Where do you see yourself in 20 years?

Rumker: My current long-range goal is to explore and improve the human condition. I want to pursue a life of scientific investigation, and in 20 years could be working on solutions for problems of human health, disheartening living conditions, our changing global climate or resource distribution to ‘3rd world’ countries. These studies would yield practical discoveries and engineered solutions, but also help us to understand our roles as humans on the earth and in the greater system of the universe by contributing scientific knowledge. I see myself in a cross-disciplinary field, utilizing global collaboration to address pressing societal problems.

All Together Now?

Over at Education Next, Michael Petrilli has an interesting article called All Together Now, which looks at the practices of tracking, ability grouping, and in-class differentiation. He starts off with this controversial, but I think correct thesis: "The greatest challenge facing America’s schools today isn’t the budget crisis, or standardized testing, or “teacher quality.” It’s the enormous variation in the academic level of students coming into any given classroom."

As many readers of this blog know, a given third grade classroom can feature children who are still figuring out how to read and those zooming through novels normally assigned in high school. Schools will do some "readiness grouping" (as we like to call it here) for math. There may be differentiated reading groups. But in many cases, elementary school teachers are expected to deal with incredible ranges of academic preparation.

Very good teachers and principals can make it work. Petrilli highlights Piney Branch Elementary School in Takoma Park, Maryland, which serves an incredibly diverse group of both middle class families and new immigrants. Piney Branch does some grouping for reading, with the "best practices" approach of moving kids quickly between reading groups based on constant evaluation. Math also features ability grouping, but most of the rest of the subjects do not. Within the first few years of the new principal arriving, the percentage of African American 5th graders passing the state reading test rose from 55 to 91 percent. "And there’s no evidence that white students have done any worse over this time," Petrilli writes. "In fact, they are performing better than ever. Before Mr. G. arrived, 33 percent of white 5th graders reached the advanced level on the state math test; in 2009, twice as many did. In fact, Piney Branch white students outscore the white kids at virtually every other Montgomery County school."

But, as any education reformer knows, replicating a Mr. G is a difficult task. As Petrilli points out, one recent Fordham Institute survey found that 8 in 10 teachers say that differentiation is "very" or "somewhat" difficult. Great teachers can handle difficult tasks. Less great teachers cannot. And so what often happens in classes is that the differentiation doesn't happen, or happens in the sense of the teacher letting the advanced kid read a book when she finishes her assignment early. While this is a great way to work through novels, it's not quite why we force children to go to school.

The reason I support extensive readiness grouping is that it works best for kids of different levels in the education system we have, not the education system we hope to have. A childhood can't be repeated, and squandering a bright mind in the name of future utopia is not justice. Petrilli's piece broadly seems to agree with this point, and is the most thorough discussion of it I've seen in a while. It is definitely worth a read.

Microphilanthropy, Donors Choose, and gifted education

I have a column in today's USA Today about microphilanthropy: basically, non-profits that encourage a direct connection between donor and recipient, with donors choosing where their money goes and receiving follow-up updates. One of the non-profits I highlight is Donors Choose. Founded by a Bronx teacher, Charles Best, in 2000, Donors Choose lets people select certain classroom projects to help fund.

I spoke with Best a few weeks ago about finding classrooms serving gifted learners through the search function, and while it's a little complicated, it's definitely doable. You can search for "gifted" in the keyword search, and come up with a few. This morning, I found a request from Mrs. T that way. Mrs. T in Green Bay, Wisconsin writes that "I work in 6 different schools a week with gifted and talented children. Many are second language learners and/or economically challenged. My children come to school and know a large percentage of the curriculum or they learn it very rapidly and many times then have to read a book to wait while other children work through the concepts. These children have so many gifts to offer the world, but they need to be pushed to challenge their learning and expand their thinking." She is asking for donors to band together to raise $353 to purchase materials. (Read more about her classes here).

Best told me that you can also narrow the search to magnet schools, which will help find some that specifically serve gifted students. Using this method, I found a request from Mrs. F in Birmingham, Alabama. She is seeking funds to purchase history books that will intrigue her students. She writes, "I teach fifty-five 4th grade students from fifteen area schools who have been identified as gifted. There is no funding for gifted education in Alabama. Our state education systems have been tremendously hurt by the economic turndown and the oil spill in the gulf. Any materials we get are purchased from our own pocket, thus no books, no equipment, and no materials." She is asking donors to give $268 (it was more but four people have chipped in already). You can read more about her here.

Of course, you can't read these requests without getting upset. The United States spends more per pupil than the vast majority of countries (even in a downturn), yet somehow teachers are being told that there is no money for books for their classes and they have to buy them themselves? How is it that low-income, gifted students -- those that we need public schools to serve and challenge to reach their incredible potential -- are given a mere hour or so of pull-out a week? Why is their teacher running around to 6 different schools and asking anonymous donors for items to help her serve her kids' needs?

These are broader questions that we have to continue working on. But in the meantime, Donors Choose gives people a way to address specific needs even as we figure out how to address a broader problem.

Your Child Left Behind

Amanda Ripley has an interesting new piece in The Atlantic on how America fares in international education comparisons. We all know this story: we stink. Of course, we have a tendency to believe it's other people's schools that stink, not our own children's. America is a diverse nation, the story goes. We all know that inner-city schools struggle with issues of entrenched poverty. Other schools serve newly-arrived immigrant children who don't speak English. Wouldn't these schools drag down overall scores?

Perhaps. But she highlights new research from Eric Hanushek (my favorite educational economist) which compares white kids and kids with college educated parents to students overall in other countries. Reports Hanushek? "Even our most-advantaged students are not all that competitive."

Hanushek has spent his career debunking different notions of what makes a school work. For decades, we've been focused on inputs: money, class sizes, teachers with advanced degrees. No Child Left Behind has started to measure outputs, but there are many flaws with the system (not least of which is that states use their own tests, some of which seem to measure only if kids can write their names). Ripley cites Massachusetts' reforms, which have produced some good results. Massachusetts tests teachers, tests kids (using tests that produce similar results to the NAEP), and focuses money on tutoring for kids who need help.

But overall, Hanushek's findings are going against a culture of denial which is deeply entrenched. For all the fretting about schools, in certain communities (and often in the media), we hear even more about how much pressure students are under these days. The college admissions game has overachieving kids and their parents stressed out... but in most cases, all that stress isn't actually producing results that are internationally competitive. And that's a problem because we are shifting, more and more, to a global economy where your competition is not others in your school or community, but people in other countries. Where, it turns out, kids actually learn math.

American teens: It's the other kids who have a problem in math

Intel recently conducted a survey of American teenagers, to determine their attitudes toward math and science. The results are fascinating. Not for asking if kids feel that being good at math and science is important (99 percent said yes -- perhaps the other 1 percent didn't understand the question). But for finding that 85 percent of American teens are confident in their own math and science abilities. Indeed, a full 58 percent aspire to pursue a math or science-related career.

There are interesting statistics, since no where near 58 percent of American teenagers will finish college, let alone do so in STEM majors. State 8th grade proficiency scores on the math NAEP range from 7 percent (DC) to 43 percent (MA). Apparently, American teenagers have absorbed some of these statistics, since 90 percent said the US was not the best in the world in math and science. Yet the vast majority felt they, personally, were doing just fine.

Intel spun these results as saying that American kids may not be challenged enough, which I think is true. It's easy to be confident of your abilities if you've never truly been tested. Unfortunately for the over-confident among our teenagers, we now live in a global economy. Doing fine for your school, or for your community, is no longer enough.

At least, according to the Intel survey, most teens don't think this lack of international standing is a result of a lack of educational funding. They attribute it to a lack of discipline and work habits -- though, again, among other people. We all tend to think we, ourselves, are working hard (something I've discovered with time use data, and write about occasionally on my other blog). But working hard is not always enough. I'm curious if this study will get any press, and if so, how other organizations will analyze it.

Changing your local school

I recently came across a book called How to Walk to School, which tells the story of a turnaround project in a Chicago public school. What's different about this story is that the turnaround was the fruit of a collaboration between a new principal and the middle-class parents who lived nearby. Instead of moving to the suburbs or sending their kids to private schools, these parents worked with the principal to turn the local school (Nettelhorst) into the kind of place they'd send their kids to. This wasn't just a matter of sprucing the place up and fundraising for extras (though this is part of it). They also looked at the quality of instruction and worked on ways to improve teaching within the school.

I know many readers of Gifted Exchange are veteran educational activists... because you've had to be. Schools, for a variety of reasons, generally have to serve the norm. Often they don't do that! But even many good schools simply can't deal well with a child who really bucks the norm. You have had to carve out exceptions to policies, make new policies, lobby for new classes, extra services and so forth.

Sometimes it doesn't work. And so you wind up homeschooling, or moving to a different community, or paying tuition at a private school that will work with you. But I'd love to hear some stories from readers who have successfully worked with teachers and principals to change their local school to better serve both your own children, and other gifted children who will come along in the future.