Based on an excellent suggestion by GE reader Taia, today's post deals with a recent Wall Street Journal article on Bill Gates Sr. and Bill Gates Jr.
Bill Gates Sr. has mostly stayed out of the limelight, but with a short book coming out, he agreed to talk to the WSJ about Bill Gates' childhood. The article reveals some fascinating details. Young Bill read the encyclopedia at a young age, and became very intellectually curious. Mrs. Gates (Bill Gates Jr.'s mother) was fairly strict with young Bill. When he started to become rather obnoxious -- a not uncommon thing for highly gifted young people -- and talking back to her, questioning her authority, the two fought a lot. This resulted in one dinner table incident of Bill Gates Sr. throwing a glass of water in Bill Jr.'s face.
After that, the parents enrolled Bill Jr. in counseling. The counselor advised them to ease up on the boy a bit. While this may or may not be the right move for other gifted young people, having the freedom to explore lots of things in the real, grown-up world, definitely helped satisfy Bill Jr.'s curiosity. His parents transferred him to Lakeside (known as the school where he learned about computers) and let him spend late nights working with the University of Washington's computer facilities. This helped him build up programming expertise, which became necessary when he started Microsoft a few years later. They also still provided a lot of familial support even after Bill Jr. dropped out of college (his mom actually checked on whether he had clean shirts!)
Lots of parents of highly gifted kids struggle with what to do with their precocious adolescents. On one hand, these young people have the minds of adults. They can interact with adults on their level or beyond, and are often capable of thinking into the future and accepting responsibility. But, on the other hand, they can still have some of the impulses and generalized stupidity that come from being 13. And even if they are quite mature, the outside world is not willing to let such young people accept the privileges and responsibilities of adulthood.
I'm curious how readers of Gifted Exchange have dealt with the conflicts involved in raising a gifted teenager. How do you give the child the freedom to explore his or her interests, while protecting them from making life-altering mistakes? And how do you know if those "mistakes" aren't really mistakes (such as Bill Gates dropping out of Harvard)?
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Thursday, April 23, 2009
McKinsey: Bad schools cost us $2.3 trillion
It's a constant refrain in education circles that spending on schools is an investment in the future. Better educated people earn more and live healthier, more productive lives. We know this through extensive social science research, and in fact, even know income numbers in terms of averages for people who score in different quartiles on standardized tests.
But we don't talk about the converse very often: By that logic, bad schools are extremely expensive in terms of producing far lower returns than one should expect. This is the equivalent of keeping your money in a 0% interest savings account at one bank, rather than going next door to one offering 2% or so for the same level of risk.
This week, McKinsey's Social Sector Office released a report quantifying exactly how bad our returns are in terms of lower expected earnings and the like. You can read the report here. Among the findings:
* If the USA closed the achievement gap on international tests between better scoring countries such as Finland and South Korea, our GDP could be $1.3-$2.3 trillion higher. This is the equivalent of 9-16% of GDP.
* If the USA closed the achievement gap between black and Hispanic students and white students, our GDP could be 2-4% higher ($310-$525 billion).
* If the USA closed the achievement gap between low income students and other students, our GDP could be 3-5% higher ($400-$670 billion).
* If low performing US states did as well as high performing US states, our GDP could be $425-700 billion higher.
* And lest anyone think it's all about money, the USA spent more per earned point on international tests than other countries (though McKinsey still notes that in general poor districts in the US spend less than richer districts and also do less well -- not universally, a la Washington DC -- but in general).
These are interesting numbers because as of late March, the current recession was expected to knock about 3.4% off GDP, and only the most bearish economists are putting it into double digits. So if our lousy schools are giving us annual returns of 9-16% less than we could expect, this is like being in a "permanent national recession," as McKinsey says.
But we don't talk about the converse very often: By that logic, bad schools are extremely expensive in terms of producing far lower returns than one should expect. This is the equivalent of keeping your money in a 0% interest savings account at one bank, rather than going next door to one offering 2% or so for the same level of risk.
This week, McKinsey's Social Sector Office released a report quantifying exactly how bad our returns are in terms of lower expected earnings and the like. You can read the report here. Among the findings:
* If the USA closed the achievement gap on international tests between better scoring countries such as Finland and South Korea, our GDP could be $1.3-$2.3 trillion higher. This is the equivalent of 9-16% of GDP.
* If the USA closed the achievement gap between black and Hispanic students and white students, our GDP could be 2-4% higher ($310-$525 billion).
* If the USA closed the achievement gap between low income students and other students, our GDP could be 3-5% higher ($400-$670 billion).
* If low performing US states did as well as high performing US states, our GDP could be $425-700 billion higher.
* And lest anyone think it's all about money, the USA spent more per earned point on international tests than other countries (though McKinsey still notes that in general poor districts in the US spend less than richer districts and also do less well -- not universally, a la Washington DC -- but in general).
These are interesting numbers because as of late March, the current recession was expected to knock about 3.4% off GDP, and only the most bearish economists are putting it into double digits. So if our lousy schools are giving us annual returns of 9-16% less than we could expect, this is like being in a "permanent national recession," as McKinsey says.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
How to Raise Our IQ
Just a quick post today -- but wanted to call attention to a Nicholas Kristof column from the New York Times last week. He writes about the ongoing debate about whether it is possible to raise IQ. The answer? Maybe. Children who are already testing above average probably won't see much effect from efforts to boost their intelligence quotient. But children who are otherwise subjected to deprived or chaotic home and school environments can see boosts from intensive, early intervention. In the coming weeks, I'll review the main book he cites, Richard Nisbett's Intelligence and How to Get It. In the meantime, I encourage you to give the article a read.
Here's the URL since it seems the above link is broken:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/16/opinion/16kristof.html
Here's the URL since it seems the above link is broken:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/16/opinion/16kristof.html
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Davidson Academy, a student's voice
Not long ago, we heard from a teacher at the Davidson Academy of Nevada, located at the University of Nevada-Reno. The Davidson Academy is the nation's first public school for profoundly gifted children. I thought it would be fun to hear from a student as well. Today we're talking with Alex Wade, 11, a student in his first year there.
GE: Why did you decide to attend the Davidson Academy?
Alex: At my old school, I was bored because the material covered was too easy for me. Also, I had trouble finding kids like me that I could make friends with easily.
GE: Describe a typical day. How is it different from your previous schools?
Alex: 1st period I take Algebra I, 2nd period I take History, 3rd period I take English, then a break for lunch, in 4th period Digital Media, in 5th study hall, and in 6th Chemistry. The classes themselves and the teachers are different from my old school in that they are more accommodating towards gifted students and the classes are harder and are not at the same exact level as each other.
GE: What kind of student do you think would do best at a place like the Davidson Academy?
Alex: A student who can meet deadlines, is self-motivated, curious, and does not goof off.
GE: Are there things you and your fellow students do at the Davidson Academy (or ways you learn) that you think other schools could try?
Alex: Matching classes up with students by ability and not age or grade, and teachers who do not lecture, but converse with the students and respect the opinions of the students.
GE: Why did you decide to attend the Davidson Academy?
Alex: At my old school, I was bored because the material covered was too easy for me. Also, I had trouble finding kids like me that I could make friends with easily.
GE: Describe a typical day. How is it different from your previous schools?
Alex: 1st period I take Algebra I, 2nd period I take History, 3rd period I take English, then a break for lunch, in 4th period Digital Media, in 5th study hall, and in 6th Chemistry. The classes themselves and the teachers are different from my old school in that they are more accommodating towards gifted students and the classes are harder and are not at the same exact level as each other.
GE: What kind of student do you think would do best at a place like the Davidson Academy?
Alex: A student who can meet deadlines, is self-motivated, curious, and does not goof off.
GE: Are there things you and your fellow students do at the Davidson Academy (or ways you learn) that you think other schools could try?
Alex: Matching classes up with students by ability and not age or grade, and teachers who do not lecture, but converse with the students and respect the opinions of the students.
Monday, April 13, 2009
Vouchers work -- sort of
In 2003, Congress created the first federally funded voucher program in the District of Columbia. This program offered students $7500 scholarships to attend private schools in the area (a number which is significantly below the public schools' per pupil funding rate). When the funds were appropriated, Congress also set aside funds for studying the program. The most recent results were just released; you can read the executive summary here.
The verdict? Vouchers do work -- sort of. Students using the scholarships earned reading test scores that were significantly higher than comparable students remaining in the public schools. This worked out to the equivalent of being about three months ahead in school. Parents also reported higher levels of satisfaction with the schools. However, math scores were not higher with any statistical significance. Scores were also flat for students who entered the voucher program after attending schools designated as being "in need of improvement." Since vouchers are usually billed as a way to help children escape failing schools, this lack of progress is certainly disappointing for some voucher advocates.
However, I view this all more through the lens of being interested in high achieving students. The DC scholarship research study was carefully designed to counter the selection bias critics usually complain about with voucher programs. Kids and families who are most interested in receiving a scholarship to attend a private school are naturally more interested in school -- and hence will likely do better on tests regardless of where they attend school. So this study compared students who didn't win the lottery for vouchers with students who did, not with "regular" students in the public schools. But even if these students would do reasonably well regardless of where they attended school, so what? I'm all for giving kids who want to broaden their opportunities any chance possible to do so. It's too bad all the students who applied couldn't be given vouchers - I like the idea of families being able to look around at the widest variety of schools, and pick the ones the best fit their needs.
The verdict? Vouchers do work -- sort of. Students using the scholarships earned reading test scores that were significantly higher than comparable students remaining in the public schools. This worked out to the equivalent of being about three months ahead in school. Parents also reported higher levels of satisfaction with the schools. However, math scores were not higher with any statistical significance. Scores were also flat for students who entered the voucher program after attending schools designated as being "in need of improvement." Since vouchers are usually billed as a way to help children escape failing schools, this lack of progress is certainly disappointing for some voucher advocates.
However, I view this all more through the lens of being interested in high achieving students. The DC scholarship research study was carefully designed to counter the selection bias critics usually complain about with voucher programs. Kids and families who are most interested in receiving a scholarship to attend a private school are naturally more interested in school -- and hence will likely do better on tests regardless of where they attend school. So this study compared students who didn't win the lottery for vouchers with students who did, not with "regular" students in the public schools. But even if these students would do reasonably well regardless of where they attended school, so what? I'm all for giving kids who want to broaden their opportunities any chance possible to do so. It's too bad all the students who applied couldn't be given vouchers - I like the idea of families being able to look around at the widest variety of schools, and pick the ones the best fit their needs.
Monday, April 06, 2009
Duncan: Want stimulus money? Cough up the data
As long time readers of this blog can guess, I'm not a huge fan of the federal stimulus bill. However, I am happy to learn that when it comes to education funding, the feds (led by education secretary Arne Duncan) have decided to ask for as much transparency and data collection as possible. The first checks seem to be coming regardless. But in order for states to get the second round, they're going to have to release certain numbers, according to this article in the New York Times. A key set? Local test scores and scores on the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP).
This is a big victory for the accountability movement, and is also going to embarrass several states. When the No Child Left Behind act was passed several years ago, Washington required that the states test children annually and track school results to show adequate yearly progress. However, in a nod to federalism, states were left free to design their own tests.
Some states did the right thing and created challenging tests that actually matched what children should know at grade level. Others decided that hey, if all they had to show was progress on a test to be rewarded on a federal level, why not make the test as easy as possible?
The NAEP -- sometimes called "The Nation's Report Card" is far more challenging and gives a better sense of whether schools are doing their job. When some states wind up reporting that 89% of their 4th graders passed the state reading test, but only 18% were proficient on the NAEP (as Steven Colbert once joked about Mississippi), something will have to happen.
So what does this mean for gifted students? Unfortunately, for a lot of gifted students, testing days are pretty much wasted days. However, a completely dumbed down test is even more of a waste than a reasonably challenging one. And if states have to redesign their tests because of these new policies, at least that opens the door to creating tests that better gauge gifted students' abilities (i.e. ceiling-less tests that show the full bell curve of children's scores). Ideally, gifted children will be accelerated to grades where the grade level test actually is challenging. But this happens far fewer places then it should. In the meantime, more rigorous assessments create better schools -- which are, in the long term, better for everyone.
This is a big victory for the accountability movement, and is also going to embarrass several states. When the No Child Left Behind act was passed several years ago, Washington required that the states test children annually and track school results to show adequate yearly progress. However, in a nod to federalism, states were left free to design their own tests.
Some states did the right thing and created challenging tests that actually matched what children should know at grade level. Others decided that hey, if all they had to show was progress on a test to be rewarded on a federal level, why not make the test as easy as possible?
The NAEP -- sometimes called "The Nation's Report Card" is far more challenging and gives a better sense of whether schools are doing their job. When some states wind up reporting that 89% of their 4th graders passed the state reading test, but only 18% were proficient on the NAEP (as Steven Colbert once joked about Mississippi), something will have to happen.
So what does this mean for gifted students? Unfortunately, for a lot of gifted students, testing days are pretty much wasted days. However, a completely dumbed down test is even more of a waste than a reasonably challenging one. And if states have to redesign their tests because of these new policies, at least that opens the door to creating tests that better gauge gifted students' abilities (i.e. ceiling-less tests that show the full bell curve of children's scores). Ideally, gifted children will be accelerated to grades where the grade level test actually is challenging. But this happens far fewer places then it should. In the meantime, more rigorous assessments create better schools -- which are, in the long term, better for everyone.
Thursday, April 02, 2009
Erin Vienneau on teaching gifted children
Today we welcome another teacher of gifted students to Gifted Exchange. Erin Vienneau teaches English and history at the Davidson Academy of Nevada, the nation's first free public day school for profoundly gifted children. Located in Reno, the school serves children who would conventionally be in the middle and high school years, and focuses on individualized instruction.
GE: Please describe a typical day for us.
Vienneau: Describing a typical day at the Academy is almost impossible because it varies so much from student to student, but I'll try. The school day starts at 8:00 and ends at 3:15, although we have several students with late starts and/or early dismissals. Our classes are an hour long, with five minute passing periods, and a 45 minute lunch -- there are six periods in a day. Most students take all four core subjects -- English, math, history, and science -- and then add electives such as foreign languages, computer classes, etc. Much of the day on Friday is devoted to other electives like creative writing, jazz band, yearbook, student council, etc. Students who are signed up for University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) courses come and go throughout the day. The majority of the students also have at least a little study hall time, during which they can work on homework or ask for assistance from someone in the writing center or math center. During lunch, there are many clubs (math, science, debate, chess, GECKO -- an environmental group -- and Community Crusaders -- a volunteer group).
GE: What are some differences between the Davidson Academy and other schools you are familiar with?
Vienneau: Two of the biggest differences between the Academy and other schools are: 1) Our classes are small and student driven. The pace, depth, and types of assignments are constantly adjusted to meet the rapidly changing needs and interests of the students. For example, in my classes, I have a pretty good idea of what I want to cover, how I want to cover it, and about how long I think it should take, but I am constantly checking in with the students, making adjustments, and altering my plans based on their feedback. 2) To a higher degree here than I have seen elsewhere, these students are really supportive of each other. There is a lot of collaboration in class and in study halls. I thought this school might be highly competitive, and while there is some good natured competition which helps everyone push themselves a little, overall, the students are very kind and cooperative with each other.
GE: What have you learned from teaching at the Academy?
Vienneau: Lessons I've learned at the Academy: 1) Be flexible. Be willing to change your mind or your strategy at a moment's notice based on how well any given task is working. 2) Have a good sense of humor. Many smart teenagers, and preteens, like to joke around, and being willing to joke back goes a long way toward building good relationships. When students like their teachers, they are usually more driven to do their best work. 3) Don't feel like you have to know everything. Be open to learning from your students. I greatly value the enthusiasm and knowledge of my students because then our whole class is working together to learn, think, deliberate, and discover.
GE: Please describe a typical day for us.
Vienneau: Describing a typical day at the Academy is almost impossible because it varies so much from student to student, but I'll try. The school day starts at 8:00 and ends at 3:15, although we have several students with late starts and/or early dismissals. Our classes are an hour long, with five minute passing periods, and a 45 minute lunch -- there are six periods in a day. Most students take all four core subjects -- English, math, history, and science -- and then add electives such as foreign languages, computer classes, etc. Much of the day on Friday is devoted to other electives like creative writing, jazz band, yearbook, student council, etc. Students who are signed up for University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) courses come and go throughout the day. The majority of the students also have at least a little study hall time, during which they can work on homework or ask for assistance from someone in the writing center or math center. During lunch, there are many clubs (math, science, debate, chess, GECKO -- an environmental group -- and Community Crusaders -- a volunteer group).
GE: What are some differences between the Davidson Academy and other schools you are familiar with?
Vienneau: Two of the biggest differences between the Academy and other schools are: 1) Our classes are small and student driven. The pace, depth, and types of assignments are constantly adjusted to meet the rapidly changing needs and interests of the students. For example, in my classes, I have a pretty good idea of what I want to cover, how I want to cover it, and about how long I think it should take, but I am constantly checking in with the students, making adjustments, and altering my plans based on their feedback. 2) To a higher degree here than I have seen elsewhere, these students are really supportive of each other. There is a lot of collaboration in class and in study halls. I thought this school might be highly competitive, and while there is some good natured competition which helps everyone push themselves a little, overall, the students are very kind and cooperative with each other.
GE: What have you learned from teaching at the Academy?
Vienneau: Lessons I've learned at the Academy: 1) Be flexible. Be willing to change your mind or your strategy at a moment's notice based on how well any given task is working. 2) Have a good sense of humor. Many smart teenagers, and preteens, like to joke around, and being willing to joke back goes a long way toward building good relationships. When students like their teachers, they are usually more driven to do their best work. 3) Don't feel like you have to know everything. Be open to learning from your students. I greatly value the enthusiasm and knowledge of my students because then our whole class is working together to learn, think, deliberate, and discover.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Carol Fertig: "It is impossible for teachers to do it all"
Today we welcome Carol Fertig to Gifted Exchange. Fertig is a gifted education expert and the author of Raising a Gifted Child: A Parenting Success Handbook, new from Prufrock Press.
GE: You've been in gifted ed for decades—why did you write Raising a Gifted Child now? Did you learn anything new in the process?
Fertig: Writing Raising a Gifted Child: A Parenting Success Handbook presented me with an opportunity to combine two things that I enjoy very much: writing and sharing resources.
Since the spring of 2005, I have been doing the Gifted Child Information Blog for Prufrock Press. In the weekly entries, I include lots of information on a variety of topics specific to gifted education, including philosophy and theory, practical information and techniques, many excellent resources, and current events. The blog is designed to appeal to both teachers and parents. Joel McIntosh, publisher of Prufrock Press, asked me to put the book together for parents, based on the type of information that I include in the blog.
Writing the book gave me a chance to take much of the information I had previously assembled in the blog and reorganize it into meaningful chapters, while weaving in interesting stories of real students and families.
The biggest challenge was working with such a large document. I had to learn how to manage so much text.
GE: What's the biggest misconception about parenting a gifted kid? (that the public has, and that parents themselves have)?
Fertig: Probably the biggest misconception is that parents of gifted children need to be afraid. Well-meaning parents may read articles or books that suggest that a gifted child’s needs must be met using a specific strategy at school or the young person will be destined to misery the rest of his life. Most parents do not realize that whether their child is highly gifted, gifted, or just bright, there are many choices for directing and supplementing educational opportunities. In Raising a Gifted Child, I show parents that they don’t need to be afraid; instead, I present the many possibilities there are for school choice (including homeschooling and virtual schools), mentors, tutors, enriching experiences, and resources. I explain how many strategies can be combined to provide good educational experiences.
Most people (the public, parents of gifted kids, and teachers) get hung up on cookie cutter approaches. Much time is spent on the definition and identification of giftedness rather than looking at kids as complex beings with sets of strengths and challenges. The definition of giftedness varies between experts in the field. If the experts can’t agree on a definition, it is even more difficult to find a uniform identification process. Some students have and/or develop much greater strengths than others. It is more important to figure out and act on the strengths of kids than it is to label them.
GE: When a parent first learns that his or her child is gifted, what should the first step be? What resources do you recommend?
Fertig: It is important for parents to realize that there is no one right way to raise and educate highly capable children; instead, there are many good choices and one must pick what works for each family and situation. The only way to understand the possible choices is to learn about them.
In Raising a Gifted Child, I offer a large menu of strategies, organizations, school options, Web sites, tips, and suggestions to encourage smart kids to learn and develop. I provide specific suggestions for language arts, math, science, social studies, foreign language, music and art, technology, high-level thinking skills, and creativity. Many suggestions are for students who have strong interests and perform above average. Other resources and strategies are for the few kids who are among the smartest in the nation.
GE: You call on parents to be pro-active and constructive when dealing with the child's school. Please talk a little bit more about what this means, and what's the best approach.
Fertig: It is impossible for teachers to do it all. There is simply not enough time. Parents can be a great asset at school, setting up mentorship programs, before/during/afterschool clubs and enrichment classes, and working with small groups of children on specific skills. In Raising a Gifted Child, I talk about the most effective ways for parents to offer their services (giving specific language to use) and explain why teachers are sometimes reluctant to ask parents to help. I describe in detail several mentorship model programs that have been successfully executed — mostly set up by parent volunteers. In the chapter on specific subjects, numerous academic clubs, commercial programs, and supplementary materials from quality educational publishers are listed. These can all be used for enrichment and subject acceleration opportunities.
GE: How can Raising a Gifted Child best be used?
Fertig: The book can be used in a variety of ways, including as a resource for students who have specific strengths or interests, for parents to see the many educational choices they have, and for ideas for enrichment at home. Raising a Gifted Child is a good starting point for parent/parent and parent/teacher discussions. It is also a good resource for parenting networking groups — especially as a jumping off point for sharing strategies and resources that have worked in families with gifted kids.
GE: You've been in gifted ed for decades—why did you write Raising a Gifted Child now? Did you learn anything new in the process?
Fertig: Writing Raising a Gifted Child: A Parenting Success Handbook presented me with an opportunity to combine two things that I enjoy very much: writing and sharing resources.
Since the spring of 2005, I have been doing the Gifted Child Information Blog for Prufrock Press. In the weekly entries, I include lots of information on a variety of topics specific to gifted education, including philosophy and theory, practical information and techniques, many excellent resources, and current events. The blog is designed to appeal to both teachers and parents. Joel McIntosh, publisher of Prufrock Press, asked me to put the book together for parents, based on the type of information that I include in the blog.
Writing the book gave me a chance to take much of the information I had previously assembled in the blog and reorganize it into meaningful chapters, while weaving in interesting stories of real students and families.
The biggest challenge was working with such a large document. I had to learn how to manage so much text.
GE: What's the biggest misconception about parenting a gifted kid? (that the public has, and that parents themselves have)?
Fertig: Probably the biggest misconception is that parents of gifted children need to be afraid. Well-meaning parents may read articles or books that suggest that a gifted child’s needs must be met using a specific strategy at school or the young person will be destined to misery the rest of his life. Most parents do not realize that whether their child is highly gifted, gifted, or just bright, there are many choices for directing and supplementing educational opportunities. In Raising a Gifted Child, I show parents that they don’t need to be afraid; instead, I present the many possibilities there are for school choice (including homeschooling and virtual schools), mentors, tutors, enriching experiences, and resources. I explain how many strategies can be combined to provide good educational experiences.
Most people (the public, parents of gifted kids, and teachers) get hung up on cookie cutter approaches. Much time is spent on the definition and identification of giftedness rather than looking at kids as complex beings with sets of strengths and challenges. The definition of giftedness varies between experts in the field. If the experts can’t agree on a definition, it is even more difficult to find a uniform identification process. Some students have and/or develop much greater strengths than others. It is more important to figure out and act on the strengths of kids than it is to label them.
GE: When a parent first learns that his or her child is gifted, what should the first step be? What resources do you recommend?
Fertig: It is important for parents to realize that there is no one right way to raise and educate highly capable children; instead, there are many good choices and one must pick what works for each family and situation. The only way to understand the possible choices is to learn about them.
In Raising a Gifted Child, I offer a large menu of strategies, organizations, school options, Web sites, tips, and suggestions to encourage smart kids to learn and develop. I provide specific suggestions for language arts, math, science, social studies, foreign language, music and art, technology, high-level thinking skills, and creativity. Many suggestions are for students who have strong interests and perform above average. Other resources and strategies are for the few kids who are among the smartest in the nation.
GE: You call on parents to be pro-active and constructive when dealing with the child's school. Please talk a little bit more about what this means, and what's the best approach.
Fertig: It is impossible for teachers to do it all. There is simply not enough time. Parents can be a great asset at school, setting up mentorship programs, before/during/afterschool clubs and enrichment classes, and working with small groups of children on specific skills. In Raising a Gifted Child, I talk about the most effective ways for parents to offer their services (giving specific language to use) and explain why teachers are sometimes reluctant to ask parents to help. I describe in detail several mentorship model programs that have been successfully executed — mostly set up by parent volunteers. In the chapter on specific subjects, numerous academic clubs, commercial programs, and supplementary materials from quality educational publishers are listed. These can all be used for enrichment and subject acceleration opportunities.
GE: How can Raising a Gifted Child best be used?
Fertig: The book can be used in a variety of ways, including as a resource for students who have specific strengths or interests, for parents to see the many educational choices they have, and for ideas for enrichment at home. Raising a Gifted Child is a good starting point for parent/parent and parent/teacher discussions. It is also a good resource for parenting networking groups — especially as a jumping off point for sharing strategies and resources that have worked in families with gifted kids.
Friday, March 27, 2009
Facets of Gifted Education: Lou DiGioia and MATHCOUNTS
Today in the "Facets" series, we're talking with Lou DiGioia, the executive director of MATHCOUNTS, which is the nation's largest middle school math enrichment, coaching and competition program. Every year, hundreds of thousands of students participate -- including, I'm sure, many children of Gifted Exchange readers -- and alums include everyone from, well, DiGioia to me! DiGioia also hosts a blog called "Rational Expressions" at the MATHCOUNTS web site. I invite readers to share their MATHCOUNTS experiences in the comments section.
GE: Tell us a little bit about why 7th and 8th graders should check out MATHCOUNTS.
DiGioia: Because there is something in it for everyone! If a student needs help in math, there are lots of free resources that can help give them that extra boost they need to improve their abilities. If a student is looking for a new challenge in math, the problems in our competitions are sure to test students no matter how good their skills are!
GE: Has the competition changed in any way over the years?
DiGioia: Not at all. The competition still consists of 4 levels - school, chapter, state and national, and the tests we give today are still in the same format as when we started. The questions change each year, but they still maintain our high standards for creativity.
GE: Are there any famous former Mathletes?
DiGioia: Besides me? Kidding of course! There are former mathletes in all walks of life, and we have highlighted several alums who have done some amazing things on our website, www.mathcounts.org. That being said, it's amazing where I'll run into former mathletes. At a recent conference I met the Mayor of Pittsburgh, Luke Ravenstahl, who informed me that he did MATHCOUNTS when he was in middle school.
GE: What will it take to get more young Americans aiming for science, math and technology careers?
DiGioia: A commitment on the part of all parties involved to improving education. This includes the students, parents, teachers, school systems, and the government to work together to emphasize the importance of math education. I think we're finally seeing increased awareness of just how important math is on a large scale and the message is being pushed down to the grassroots level. It certainly helps when the President makes math education one of the top priorities of his education agenda!
GE: Tell us a little bit about why 7th and 8th graders should check out MATHCOUNTS.
DiGioia: Because there is something in it for everyone! If a student needs help in math, there are lots of free resources that can help give them that extra boost they need to improve their abilities. If a student is looking for a new challenge in math, the problems in our competitions are sure to test students no matter how good their skills are!
GE: Has the competition changed in any way over the years?
DiGioia: Not at all. The competition still consists of 4 levels - school, chapter, state and national, and the tests we give today are still in the same format as when we started. The questions change each year, but they still maintain our high standards for creativity.
GE: Are there any famous former Mathletes?
DiGioia: Besides me? Kidding of course! There are former mathletes in all walks of life, and we have highlighted several alums who have done some amazing things on our website, www.mathcounts.org. That being said, it's amazing where I'll run into former mathletes. At a recent conference I met the Mayor of Pittsburgh, Luke Ravenstahl, who informed me that he did MATHCOUNTS when he was in middle school.
GE: What will it take to get more young Americans aiming for science, math and technology careers?
DiGioia: A commitment on the part of all parties involved to improving education. This includes the students, parents, teachers, school systems, and the government to work together to emphasize the importance of math education. I think we're finally seeing increased awareness of just how important math is on a large scale and the message is being pushed down to the grassroots level. It certainly helps when the President makes math education one of the top priorities of his education agenda!
Thursday, March 26, 2009
The Importance of Preschool
I have lines out to several more folks for Q&As in our Facets of Gifted Education series, but today I thought we'd look at a different topic. Parents of gifted children often know there is something different about their child by age 3 or 4 or even earlier, even if most aren't officially identified until kindergarten or 3rd grade. If you find yourself with such a child, what should you do? And how young can children start learning a more formal academic curriculum?
As some of you know, I have a toddler, Jasper, who is almost 2. Since I work at home, we chose to put him in a daycare center about two blocks from our house. For the first year or so, it was pretty much just straight up childcare. But when he was about 15 months old, he moved to the "young toddlers" class, and now is in the "toddlers" class, and they've really stepped up the educational game. He learned to identify shapes including squares, ovals and octagons (granted, he loves yelling "octagon" and octagon for him means any shape with n sides where n>6, but still...) He pointed out the letter B to me on one of his blocks the other day, and counts his puzzles. It's pretty much pure memorization at this point -- he'll often count up to four or five, even if there are only three puzzles -- but if he had been home with me during the days, I doubt it would have occurred to me to teach him to identify octagons. And he loves learning all these things (in addition to hanging out with his friends).
While I know Jasper is a smart kid, I don't think he is profoundly gifted. Nonetheless, my experience with him has made me wonder about how parents can expose extremely gifted preschool aged children to a level of learning that keeps them challenged. One of the good things about preschool (good ones, that is) is that they tend to have more discovery-based curricula -- the point is to play and learn things, not necessarily all learn the same things at the same time. Indeed, the more I think about it, the more I think that it's not a bad idea to get children into high quality preschools as soon as possible. Most "normal" preschools start for children around ages 2 or 3, but younger children -- like Jasper -- can definitely still be interested in these things. He would not be exposed to them nearly as regularly otherwise.
I am aware that this is probably a controversial statement, so I've been trying to find some research that talks about this issue. There is certainly research about the benefits of preschool; I found this article from Parents about Why Preschool Matters, and this old article about challenging gifted young children in preschool from Children Today, but these are mainly about programs for 3- and 4-year-olds. Most of the research on "childcare" programs (which can be for younger children) focuses on their effect on at-risk children, particularly low-income children. High quality programs have been shown to help such children, though the jury is out for kids from other backgrounds. It may be a wash.
I'm curious what Gifted Exchange readers have found. Did you put your gifted children in childcare or preschool programs when they were toddlers? Did they enjoy them? Did it stimulate their little brains, or make the transition to school easier?
As some of you know, I have a toddler, Jasper, who is almost 2. Since I work at home, we chose to put him in a daycare center about two blocks from our house. For the first year or so, it was pretty much just straight up childcare. But when he was about 15 months old, he moved to the "young toddlers" class, and now is in the "toddlers" class, and they've really stepped up the educational game. He learned to identify shapes including squares, ovals and octagons (granted, he loves yelling "octagon" and octagon for him means any shape with n sides where n>6, but still...) He pointed out the letter B to me on one of his blocks the other day, and counts his puzzles. It's pretty much pure memorization at this point -- he'll often count up to four or five, even if there are only three puzzles -- but if he had been home with me during the days, I doubt it would have occurred to me to teach him to identify octagons. And he loves learning all these things (in addition to hanging out with his friends).
While I know Jasper is a smart kid, I don't think he is profoundly gifted. Nonetheless, my experience with him has made me wonder about how parents can expose extremely gifted preschool aged children to a level of learning that keeps them challenged. One of the good things about preschool (good ones, that is) is that they tend to have more discovery-based curricula -- the point is to play and learn things, not necessarily all learn the same things at the same time. Indeed, the more I think about it, the more I think that it's not a bad idea to get children into high quality preschools as soon as possible. Most "normal" preschools start for children around ages 2 or 3, but younger children -- like Jasper -- can definitely still be interested in these things. He would not be exposed to them nearly as regularly otherwise.
I am aware that this is probably a controversial statement, so I've been trying to find some research that talks about this issue. There is certainly research about the benefits of preschool; I found this article from Parents about Why Preschool Matters, and this old article about challenging gifted young children in preschool from Children Today, but these are mainly about programs for 3- and 4-year-olds. Most of the research on "childcare" programs (which can be for younger children) focuses on their effect on at-risk children, particularly low-income children. High quality programs have been shown to help such children, though the jury is out for kids from other backgrounds. It may be a wash.
I'm curious what Gifted Exchange readers have found. Did you put your gifted children in childcare or preschool programs when they were toddlers? Did they enjoy them? Did it stimulate their little brains, or make the transition to school easier?
Friday, March 20, 2009
Bucking the Trend
In his Q&A (below), Prufrock publisher Joel McIntosh mentioned that the dominant trend these days is toward heterogeneous classrooms, and so a big chunk of his market is selling differentiation guides to teachers. Likewise, we've been discussing budget cuts that have led to the cancellation or shrinking of gifted programs around the country.
So it's interesting to read about one district, at least, that's bucking the trend. According to a recent article in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, the Prior Lake-Savage district school board recently voted to create a homogeneous gifted program within a larger elementary school. The program will be open to gifted students from across the district in 3rd, 4th and 5th grades.
Such self-contained programs that draw from outside normal school boundaries are (along with acceleration) the gold standard for gifted education. Not only are they more likely to challenge gifted kids in an environment with their peers, they reduce the workload for teachers of other classes (who won't need to differentiate quite as much). If the school district already allows busing for various other reasons (diversity, school choice and so forth) then you can usually keep transportation costs in line with per pupil expenditures under these programs, and since children have to be educated in one class or another, such classes should not cost more than other classes if the teacher-to-pupil ratio is in line with school district guidelines. And if you keep children in the local public schools who might have otherwise attended private schools or have been homeschooled, then the district actually gains per pupil funding.
This is exactly the thought process that appears to have won over the local school board. According to the Star-Tribune article, "The district says it can start the program without spending extra money. Instead, it will tap its existing gifted program and student services budgets."
So here's the question. Why did these arguments work in Minnesota? And how can gifted advocates make these arguments resonate elsewhere?
So it's interesting to read about one district, at least, that's bucking the trend. According to a recent article in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, the Prior Lake-Savage district school board recently voted to create a homogeneous gifted program within a larger elementary school. The program will be open to gifted students from across the district in 3rd, 4th and 5th grades.
Such self-contained programs that draw from outside normal school boundaries are (along with acceleration) the gold standard for gifted education. Not only are they more likely to challenge gifted kids in an environment with their peers, they reduce the workload for teachers of other classes (who won't need to differentiate quite as much). If the school district already allows busing for various other reasons (diversity, school choice and so forth) then you can usually keep transportation costs in line with per pupil expenditures under these programs, and since children have to be educated in one class or another, such classes should not cost more than other classes if the teacher-to-pupil ratio is in line with school district guidelines. And if you keep children in the local public schools who might have otherwise attended private schools or have been homeschooled, then the district actually gains per pupil funding.
This is exactly the thought process that appears to have won over the local school board. According to the Star-Tribune article, "The district says it can start the program without spending extra money. Instead, it will tap its existing gifted program and student services budgets."
So here's the question. Why did these arguments work in Minnesota? And how can gifted advocates make these arguments resonate elsewhere?
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Facets of Gifted Education: Joel McIntosh, Prufrock Press
Joining us today is Joel McIntosh, the publisher of Prufrock Press. Prufrock is "the nation's leading resource for special needs, advanced and gifted learners" and for years has been producing classroom materials and books that deal with the issues we talk about here at Gifted Exchange. McIntosh discusses his work, and current trends in education.
GE: Why does the world need a publisher focused on gifted issues?
McIntosh: Twenty years ago, I taught gifted students in a small town in Texas. I began attending gifted education conferences in the mid-1980s and discovered wonderfully creative teachers who were willing to share their lessons, units, and projects, and scholars who were willing to share their research findings. I remember thinking, "Why isn't someone publishing these great ideas?" It wasn't long before I decided that someone should be me.
The reason we need a publisher focused on gifted education is that large publishers see the field as too small for heavy investments. Without a publishing house like Prufrock Press, the field would have little access to materials that have undergone the kind of vetting, editorial controls, and content improvement that ours do. I think that's an important distinction between what we publish and what a teacher or parent might find by simply searching the Internet for resources. Prufrock Press has a senior advisory group composed of the top scholars in the field of gifted education, all of our editors have graduate degrees in gifted education or children's literature, and we all have classroom experience. In essence, when a customer picks up our catalog, he or she knows that the resources he or she finds there will be research-based and reflect agreed-upon best practices in the field of gifted education.
GE: Who is the audience for your products? How much of what you do is parenting books vs. classroom materials, tests, etc?
McIntosh: A majority of our buyers are teachers who serve gifted children in their classrooms. We also serve university professors and graduate students. The rest of our customers are parents looking for information and resources that challenge their children. Typically, we reach educators through our gifted education catalogs. Parents, on the other hand, quite often find us via the Web. Our Web site is a fantastic resource. In addition to our online catalog, we provide free information about teaching and parenting gifted kids, blogs that focus on important topics in the field, and plenty of online articles that offer practical advice about gifted children.
We do publish a handful of parenting books. Our most recent parenting release, Raising a Gifted Child: A Parenting Success Handbook by Carol Fertig, has been wildly successful because it is the best, most up-to-date resource on parenting strategies, resources, organizations, and tips for parenting a gifted child. The Web resources listed in this book would, by themselves, justify the purchase price of this book.
However, the vast majority of our products are designed as teaching resources or professional development materials. Whether being used in a classroom or at home, these materials are innovative, fun, and research-based. For example, we publish an entire line of guides for teaching philosophy to kids, interdisciplinary curriculum, an entire advanced reading skills program, challenging and fun mathematics resources ... the list of innovative teaching tools that we publish is nearly endless.
I'll tell you something I'm very proud of: our teaching resources are substantial, based on sound research, and assume a sophistication on the part of our customers. Drop by any teacher supply store and look at some of the teaching materials available from big publishers. You'll find book after book of unchallenging, basic-skills, fill-in-the-blank worksheets. Look at our materials and you'll discover an extraordinarily different kind of product. For example, our award-winning curriculum units developed by he Center for Gifted Education at the College of William and Mary feature advanced topics ranging from spatial reasoning to molecular physics.
You should sit in on one of editorial meetings as we sort through the new product proposals we receive from authors. About 95% of the products we reject would probably be acceptable to the larger publishers, but we reject them. We're looking for the real jewels that sparkle. The kinds of proposals that we accept make you want to say, "How cool! I would have loved to teach with this idea. The kids would have loved it."
GE: What current/upcoming titles or products are you most excited about?
Increasingly, schools are moving toward inclusive, mixed-ability classrooms. Teachers are craving practical tools that will help them creatively teach and challenge all of the students in a classroom. We've been working with some of our most popular authors to help address this need.
I'm thrilled about our new middle school series, Differentiating Instruction With Menus. This series offers teachers everything they need to create an inclusive, student-centered learning environment based on choice. These books (one for each of the core content areas) provide a number of fun, different menus that middle school students can use to manage their learning and the exciting, creative products they develop to show the content and skills they have mastered. We released the elementary-level series of menus books 2 years ago, and our customers have loved them. I know our middle school customers will be happy to get their hands of this new version of the series (available in April 2009).
Just this month, we released Differentiation Made Simple: Timesaving Tools for Teachers. This book is like a ready-to-use education toolbox for helping classroom teachers overcome time constraints and other obstacles to differentiation by providing a wealth of ready-made and generic tools they can employ right away.
On a personal note, I am honored to be the publisher of Leading Change in Gifted Education: The Festschrift of Dr. Joyce VanTassel-Baska (available in late March 2009). Few individuals have had such a lifelong and profound impact on the education of gifted children as Dr. VanTassel-Baska. This book traces this important thinker and her impact on gifted education. It includes major strands of work central to defining the field of gifted education and discusses relevant trends and issues that have shaped or will shape the field. This book is sure to be an invaluable resource for policymakers, scholars, researchers, and practitioners who are interested in research-based practices to better serve gifted students. We are proud to have been chosen as the book's publisher.
GE: Have you noticed any big changes in education in 20 years of being involved in these issues?
McIntosh: Absolutely. Twenty years ago, many gifted programs lacked academic rigor and substance. Gifted classes had a lot of fluff (the term we used for activities that seemed fun, but frivolous). Walk into a gifted pull-out program in that day, for example, and you might see kids painting a hand-held shield that featured icons representing different parts of the child's personality. Although fun and possessing some exploratory value, such activities couldn't really be justified as a expenditure of valuable educational resources, especially learning time for students.
Things changed because of many education leaders such as Dr. Joyce VanTassel-Baska at the Center for Gifted Education at The College of William and Mary and Dr. Julian Stanley at the Center for Talented Youth at Johns Hopkins University. These leaders built programs that started with the premise that talented kids ought to be able to have learning opportunities that truly challenge the child in his or her area of talent. Such programs began promoting a kind of education focused on substantial and valuable academic learning experiences for gifted children. It was a real shift in thinking. People like Dr. VanTassel-Baska and Dr. Stanley challenged us to think of an educational environment as having the purpose of challenging every child to the extent of his or her abilities. Every child in any classroom deserves to be challenged with valuable learning experiences, regardless of his or her ability.
Unfortunately, there are many people who see the purpose of education as being nothing more than a guarantee that a set of agreed-upon skills should be mastered by every child. According to this kind of thinking, a gifted child who has already mastered these skills has little purpose in a school. In fact, this has been the driving philosophy behind the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act.
The last 8 years have been tough for gifted education programs and children. NCLB has had a devastating effect on gifted education. The act forced schools to channel funding and other resources toward children who were not reaching NCLB achievement benchmarks. This change of focus and dollars drained resources from gifted child education. The stories of schools, districts, and even entire states dropping funding from gifted education over the last 8 years were common.
I do, however, think that with a change in leadership in Washington, this trend will shift. I expect to see a renewal of interest in gifted education with change in the current administration.
GE: Why does the world need a publisher focused on gifted issues?
McIntosh: Twenty years ago, I taught gifted students in a small town in Texas. I began attending gifted education conferences in the mid-1980s and discovered wonderfully creative teachers who were willing to share their lessons, units, and projects, and scholars who were willing to share their research findings. I remember thinking, "Why isn't someone publishing these great ideas?" It wasn't long before I decided that someone should be me.
The reason we need a publisher focused on gifted education is that large publishers see the field as too small for heavy investments. Without a publishing house like Prufrock Press, the field would have little access to materials that have undergone the kind of vetting, editorial controls, and content improvement that ours do. I think that's an important distinction between what we publish and what a teacher or parent might find by simply searching the Internet for resources. Prufrock Press has a senior advisory group composed of the top scholars in the field of gifted education, all of our editors have graduate degrees in gifted education or children's literature, and we all have classroom experience. In essence, when a customer picks up our catalog, he or she knows that the resources he or she finds there will be research-based and reflect agreed-upon best practices in the field of gifted education.
GE: Who is the audience for your products? How much of what you do is parenting books vs. classroom materials, tests, etc?
McIntosh: A majority of our buyers are teachers who serve gifted children in their classrooms. We also serve university professors and graduate students. The rest of our customers are parents looking for information and resources that challenge their children. Typically, we reach educators through our gifted education catalogs. Parents, on the other hand, quite often find us via the Web. Our Web site is a fantastic resource. In addition to our online catalog, we provide free information about teaching and parenting gifted kids, blogs that focus on important topics in the field, and plenty of online articles that offer practical advice about gifted children.
We do publish a handful of parenting books. Our most recent parenting release, Raising a Gifted Child: A Parenting Success Handbook by Carol Fertig, has been wildly successful because it is the best, most up-to-date resource on parenting strategies, resources, organizations, and tips for parenting a gifted child. The Web resources listed in this book would, by themselves, justify the purchase price of this book.
However, the vast majority of our products are designed as teaching resources or professional development materials. Whether being used in a classroom or at home, these materials are innovative, fun, and research-based. For example, we publish an entire line of guides for teaching philosophy to kids, interdisciplinary curriculum, an entire advanced reading skills program, challenging and fun mathematics resources ... the list of innovative teaching tools that we publish is nearly endless.
I'll tell you something I'm very proud of: our teaching resources are substantial, based on sound research, and assume a sophistication on the part of our customers. Drop by any teacher supply store and look at some of the teaching materials available from big publishers. You'll find book after book of unchallenging, basic-skills, fill-in-the-blank worksheets. Look at our materials and you'll discover an extraordinarily different kind of product. For example, our award-winning curriculum units developed by he Center for Gifted Education at the College of William and Mary feature advanced topics ranging from spatial reasoning to molecular physics.
You should sit in on one of editorial meetings as we sort through the new product proposals we receive from authors. About 95% of the products we reject would probably be acceptable to the larger publishers, but we reject them. We're looking for the real jewels that sparkle. The kinds of proposals that we accept make you want to say, "How cool! I would have loved to teach with this idea. The kids would have loved it."
GE: What current/upcoming titles or products are you most excited about?
Increasingly, schools are moving toward inclusive, mixed-ability classrooms. Teachers are craving practical tools that will help them creatively teach and challenge all of the students in a classroom. We've been working with some of our most popular authors to help address this need.
I'm thrilled about our new middle school series, Differentiating Instruction With Menus. This series offers teachers everything they need to create an inclusive, student-centered learning environment based on choice. These books (one for each of the core content areas) provide a number of fun, different menus that middle school students can use to manage their learning and the exciting, creative products they develop to show the content and skills they have mastered. We released the elementary-level series of menus books 2 years ago, and our customers have loved them. I know our middle school customers will be happy to get their hands of this new version of the series (available in April 2009).
Just this month, we released Differentiation Made Simple: Timesaving Tools for Teachers. This book is like a ready-to-use education toolbox for helping classroom teachers overcome time constraints and other obstacles to differentiation by providing a wealth of ready-made and generic tools they can employ right away.
On a personal note, I am honored to be the publisher of Leading Change in Gifted Education: The Festschrift of Dr. Joyce VanTassel-Baska (available in late March 2009). Few individuals have had such a lifelong and profound impact on the education of gifted children as Dr. VanTassel-Baska. This book traces this important thinker and her impact on gifted education. It includes major strands of work central to defining the field of gifted education and discusses relevant trends and issues that have shaped or will shape the field. This book is sure to be an invaluable resource for policymakers, scholars, researchers, and practitioners who are interested in research-based practices to better serve gifted students. We are proud to have been chosen as the book's publisher.
GE: Have you noticed any big changes in education in 20 years of being involved in these issues?
McIntosh: Absolutely. Twenty years ago, many gifted programs lacked academic rigor and substance. Gifted classes had a lot of fluff (the term we used for activities that seemed fun, but frivolous). Walk into a gifted pull-out program in that day, for example, and you might see kids painting a hand-held shield that featured icons representing different parts of the child's personality. Although fun and possessing some exploratory value, such activities couldn't really be justified as a expenditure of valuable educational resources, especially learning time for students.
Things changed because of many education leaders such as Dr. Joyce VanTassel-Baska at the Center for Gifted Education at The College of William and Mary and Dr. Julian Stanley at the Center for Talented Youth at Johns Hopkins University. These leaders built programs that started with the premise that talented kids ought to be able to have learning opportunities that truly challenge the child in his or her area of talent. Such programs began promoting a kind of education focused on substantial and valuable academic learning experiences for gifted children. It was a real shift in thinking. People like Dr. VanTassel-Baska and Dr. Stanley challenged us to think of an educational environment as having the purpose of challenging every child to the extent of his or her abilities. Every child in any classroom deserves to be challenged with valuable learning experiences, regardless of his or her ability.
Unfortunately, there are many people who see the purpose of education as being nothing more than a guarantee that a set of agreed-upon skills should be mastered by every child. According to this kind of thinking, a gifted child who has already mastered these skills has little purpose in a school. In fact, this has been the driving philosophy behind the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act.
The last 8 years have been tough for gifted education programs and children. NCLB has had a devastating effect on gifted education. The act forced schools to channel funding and other resources toward children who were not reaching NCLB achievement benchmarks. This change of focus and dollars drained resources from gifted child education. The stories of schools, districts, and even entire states dropping funding from gifted education over the last 8 years were common.
I do, however, think that with a change in leadership in Washington, this trend will shift. I expect to see a renewal of interest in gifted education with change in the current administration.
Friday, March 13, 2009
Facets of Gifted Education: Tracy Cross
Today we return to our "Facets of Gifted Education" series with a Q&A with Tracy Cross. Cross is the George and Frances Ball Distinguished Professor of Gifted Studies at Ball State University and the former Executive Director of the Indiana Academy for Science, Mathematics, and Humanities. His research centers on understanding how gifted students cope with being gifted -- and as he tell us, the news is pretty good.
GE: How did you become interested in gifted issues and research?
Cross: When I was four years old, my best friend’s older brother was quite obviously very unusual (intellectually gifted). I loved to listen to him talk and I paid attention to how others treated him. He was very interesting. At the same time, I also was growing up around artists. My family owned an art gallery, so I was around artists much of my school years. I was immersed in a culture of artistic talent. My interests in the psychology of gifted people emerged early in my life and I have been studying them for about 45 years now.
GE: What progress is being made on the gifted ed research front these days (that you think is most important) and what still doesn't get enough attention?
Cross: The fact that the context matters in the development of gifted students has been proven to be very important but still is somewhat under the radar for many. We still spend considerable time and energy trying to create lists of endogenous characteristics (those about the person) of gifted students.
The concept of nonuniversal developmental patterns of gifted students is very important to understanding them, but is not really understood by many at this point. Recent work on eminent professionals has shown a bright light on these developmental patterns.
Some important research has been conducted to test differing grouping approaches such as cluster grouping for instruction. Beginning about twenty years ago, the slow accumulation of these studies has built up our education techniques that can be used to more effectively teach gifted students in heterogeneous settings.
GE: What did you learn from your time heading the Indiana Academy that helps with your research now?
Cross: I learned many things from serving as the Executive Director of the Indiana Academy. For example, it was affirmed for me that gifted students are the most heterogeneous group of people to study. So commenting about their so-called characteristics becomes more of a stipulation rather than an empirically established fact. Moreover, the context in which those students attend schools made evident the power of specialized learning environments. Amazing things happen when you get a critical mass of intellectually gifted students together with a faculty who wants to work with them.
GE: What is the biggest misunderstanding about the social and emotional needs of gifted young people?
Cross: Perhaps the biggest misunderstanding is the result of conflating the two terms to mean one phenomenon. I find that while they overlap, they are clearly different from one another. I am personally more invested in the social development of gifted students as I have found it to be the most intriguing aspect of the psychology of gifted students. I also believe that it is a more powerful predictor of lived experience and future behavior.
A second misunderstanding is the myth that gifted students have a greater tendency toward mental health problems. This belief was disproven empirically approximately 100 years ago, but the myth still exists. Recent research has corroborated that students with gifts and talents tend to be healthier, stronger and more socially successful than their nongifted counterparts.
GE: How did you become interested in gifted issues and research?
Cross: When I was four years old, my best friend’s older brother was quite obviously very unusual (intellectually gifted). I loved to listen to him talk and I paid attention to how others treated him. He was very interesting. At the same time, I also was growing up around artists. My family owned an art gallery, so I was around artists much of my school years. I was immersed in a culture of artistic talent. My interests in the psychology of gifted people emerged early in my life and I have been studying them for about 45 years now.
GE: What progress is being made on the gifted ed research front these days (that you think is most important) and what still doesn't get enough attention?
Cross: The fact that the context matters in the development of gifted students has been proven to be very important but still is somewhat under the radar for many. We still spend considerable time and energy trying to create lists of endogenous characteristics (those about the person) of gifted students.
The concept of nonuniversal developmental patterns of gifted students is very important to understanding them, but is not really understood by many at this point. Recent work on eminent professionals has shown a bright light on these developmental patterns.
Some important research has been conducted to test differing grouping approaches such as cluster grouping for instruction. Beginning about twenty years ago, the slow accumulation of these studies has built up our education techniques that can be used to more effectively teach gifted students in heterogeneous settings.
GE: What did you learn from your time heading the Indiana Academy that helps with your research now?
Cross: I learned many things from serving as the Executive Director of the Indiana Academy. For example, it was affirmed for me that gifted students are the most heterogeneous group of people to study. So commenting about their so-called characteristics becomes more of a stipulation rather than an empirically established fact. Moreover, the context in which those students attend schools made evident the power of specialized learning environments. Amazing things happen when you get a critical mass of intellectually gifted students together with a faculty who wants to work with them.
GE: What is the biggest misunderstanding about the social and emotional needs of gifted young people?
Cross: Perhaps the biggest misunderstanding is the result of conflating the two terms to mean one phenomenon. I find that while they overlap, they are clearly different from one another. I am personally more invested in the social development of gifted students as I have found it to be the most intriguing aspect of the psychology of gifted students. I also believe that it is a more powerful predictor of lived experience and future behavior.
A second misunderstanding is the myth that gifted students have a greater tendency toward mental health problems. This belief was disproven empirically approximately 100 years ago, but the myth still exists. Recent research has corroborated that students with gifts and talents tend to be healthier, stronger and more socially successful than their nongifted counterparts.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Obama: Lift Charter School Caps
Some encouraging news today (along with a strange but welcome stock market rally) - Pres. Obama, in a speech to the National Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, called on states to lift their caps on charter schools. About half of the states currently limit the number of charter schools that can be started. Since many of these schools -- which receive public money, but operate separately from usual school district control -- have proven to be quite good, there are currently more than 300,000 students on charter school waiting lists. It's absolutely ridiculous not to let these students have more options. You can read more about the proposal, and the rest of Obama's speech, here.
He also repeated calls for a merit pay system for teachers. The details are somewhat fuzzy, and no doubt will be vigorously opposed by the teachers unions that have been among Obama's top supporters. But the idea is roughly that most people are fine with paying teachers more as long as you can get rid of the bad ones, and teachers who show concrete results -- in the form of higher student achievement -- are rewarded appropriately. This is how professionals should be paid and treated. In accounting, for instance, partners in firms can do quite well, but if your clients are continually doing badly on audits, you'd be out the door.
It's not clear yet what any of this would mean for gifted students. Obviously, gifted kids, like all kids, benefit from having better teachers. In theory, charter schools could be great for gifted kids, because some charters could focus on, say, advanced course work. This is what the Charter School of Wilmington was founded to do. On the other hand, many states have rules that charter schools can't pick their students, which makes selecting for giftedness difficult (the Charter School of Wilmington got away with this for years by saying that high test scores indicated an interest in the school's philosophy, and they were allowed to choose students who met that description. This approach has come under quite a bit of fire lately). But in general, charters allow educational experimentation, and flexibility is good for gifted kids. I'd love to hear from parents whose children are enrolled in charter schools about your experiences.
He also repeated calls for a merit pay system for teachers. The details are somewhat fuzzy, and no doubt will be vigorously opposed by the teachers unions that have been among Obama's top supporters. But the idea is roughly that most people are fine with paying teachers more as long as you can get rid of the bad ones, and teachers who show concrete results -- in the form of higher student achievement -- are rewarded appropriately. This is how professionals should be paid and treated. In accounting, for instance, partners in firms can do quite well, but if your clients are continually doing badly on audits, you'd be out the door.
It's not clear yet what any of this would mean for gifted students. Obviously, gifted kids, like all kids, benefit from having better teachers. In theory, charter schools could be great for gifted kids, because some charters could focus on, say, advanced course work. This is what the Charter School of Wilmington was founded to do. On the other hand, many states have rules that charter schools can't pick their students, which makes selecting for giftedness difficult (the Charter School of Wilmington got away with this for years by saying that high test scores indicated an interest in the school's philosophy, and they were allowed to choose students who met that description. This approach has come under quite a bit of fire lately). But in general, charters allow educational experimentation, and flexibility is good for gifted kids. I'd love to hear from parents whose children are enrolled in charter schools about your experiences.
Monday, March 09, 2009
The Science Fair Circuit
Today I'm down in Washington, DC reporting on the finals of the Intel Science Talent Search on behalf of Scientific American. You can read a few of my postings on their website, including one on Chelsea Jurman's social science project (on teen drinking), one on Smitha Ramakrishna's discovery that Splenda isn't broken down by waste water treatment processes, and Aditya Rajagopalan's experiments with cellulosic ethanol (link to go up soon). In the next day or two, SciAm.com should also post my video interviews with several of the finalists.
I've wound up writing about several national science/math competitions this year, including the Davidson Fellows in September, the Siemens Competition in Math, Science and Technology in December, and now this one. You do see several of the same kids again (Julia Ransohoff, of Menlo Park, CA, joked to me about the "science fair circuit"). For instance, Wen Chyan, who won Siemens, is an Intel finalist, as are Christine Shrock and Philip Streich (who were both Davidson Fellows). I'm glad to see this -- it shows there's a lot of validity to the judging. The best projects are, in fact, the best projects!
But even more, I like the idea of a science fair circuit. Parents of kids with outsized athletic talents soon wind up learning about "travel soccer leagues" and the most competitive summer swimming camps and the like. Most of us only see gymnastics in the Olympics, but all those young athletes know each other well. They've been competing against each other every few months for years. Even less well-known sports like, say, trampoline, feature circuits of competitions.
Why not science? The more competitions that exist, the more opportunities exist for top young scientists to win big bucks and attention. And that encourages more young people to spend their summers and afternoons in the lab. A few years ago, the New York Times magazine ran a cover story on the rise of the "gifted child industry." This put a bit of a less positive spin on these contests. But until you see kids in every city park playing pick-up physics... well... I'm happy for more of a circuit.
I've wound up writing about several national science/math competitions this year, including the Davidson Fellows in September, the Siemens Competition in Math, Science and Technology in December, and now this one. You do see several of the same kids again (Julia Ransohoff, of Menlo Park, CA, joked to me about the "science fair circuit"). For instance, Wen Chyan, who won Siemens, is an Intel finalist, as are Christine Shrock and Philip Streich (who were both Davidson Fellows). I'm glad to see this -- it shows there's a lot of validity to the judging. The best projects are, in fact, the best projects!
But even more, I like the idea of a science fair circuit. Parents of kids with outsized athletic talents soon wind up learning about "travel soccer leagues" and the most competitive summer swimming camps and the like. Most of us only see gymnastics in the Olympics, but all those young athletes know each other well. They've been competing against each other every few months for years. Even less well-known sports like, say, trampoline, feature circuits of competitions.
Why not science? The more competitions that exist, the more opportunities exist for top young scientists to win big bucks and attention. And that encourages more young people to spend their summers and afternoons in the lab. A few years ago, the New York Times magazine ran a cover story on the rise of the "gifted child industry." This put a bit of a less positive spin on these contests. But until you see kids in every city park playing pick-up physics... well... I'm happy for more of a circuit.
Monday, March 02, 2009
Facets of Gifted Education: Crissa Markow, Family Consultant
We're continuing our series of Q&As with people involved in gifted education. Today we talk with Crissa Markow, a Family Consultant with the Davidson Institute for Talent Development's Young Scholars program.
GE: Talk a little bit about DITD's free Young Scholars program. Who is it for? What does it involve?
Markow: The Davidson Young Scholars Program is designed to provide information and resources to help parents address the needs of their exceptionally bright children in the areas of educational advocacy and planning, talent and interest development, and child/adolescent development. Applicants are ages 5 to 16, and we serve Young Scholars until they turn 18. Each family is connected with a Family Consultant, who provides individualized support over the phone and email. Parents and Young Scholars also have access to one another through an online community, which includes a private website, electronic mailing lists, bulletin boards, and online seminars with various experts. Additionally, there are opportunities for families to get together in person. We have found families benefit greatly from being able to share their experiences, challenges and solutions. The services vary somewhat by family, as each family has different needs and chooses their level of involvement in the program. Also, the Young Scholars program is free!
GE: What does a family consultant do?
Markow: The Family Consultant works with parents to offer individualized assistance based on the Young Scholar’s unique needs. We see our relationship with the family as a partnership in addressing issues and concerns that arise in the context of raising an exceptionally bright young person. Family Consultants can conduct individualized searches for information, contact educators and administrators as needed, help brainstorm options and explain what we’ve seen work for other Young Scholars. Often, we are simply a supportive sounding board for parents.
GE: Can you give an (anonymous) example of a situation in which you were able to help?
Markow: So many come to mind! We often brainstorm ideas for math or writing that end up being implemented, or we assist the family in finding a local mentor, or we guide the family through finding a local therapist for a Young Scholar who can intellectually understand major life changes like death, but doesn’t have the life experience to cope effectively. Recently, a parent was working with the Young Scholar’s school to make sure his needs were being met in the classroom. The school recognized how few students they had seen at this ability level, so they asked the mom how they could best meet his needs. She wasn’t sure either, so turned to her Family Consultant for ideas. The Family Consultant suggested a few curriculum ideas that we were familiar with and that had worked for other Young Scholars. The school ended up adopting one of those programs and now uses it for the Young Scholar, as well as other bright students at the school.
GE: If readers want to learn more or apply for the YS program, what should they do?
Markow: Interested families may want to visit the Young Scholar website at www.DavidsonGifted.org/YoungScholars/ for additional information about the program, as well as Qualification Criteria and the Young Scholar Application. There is also a link to one parent’s perspective of the Young Scholars program.
GE: Talk a little bit about DITD's free Young Scholars program. Who is it for? What does it involve?
Markow: The Davidson Young Scholars Program is designed to provide information and resources to help parents address the needs of their exceptionally bright children in the areas of educational advocacy and planning, talent and interest development, and child/adolescent development. Applicants are ages 5 to 16, and we serve Young Scholars until they turn 18. Each family is connected with a Family Consultant, who provides individualized support over the phone and email. Parents and Young Scholars also have access to one another through an online community, which includes a private website, electronic mailing lists, bulletin boards, and online seminars with various experts. Additionally, there are opportunities for families to get together in person. We have found families benefit greatly from being able to share their experiences, challenges and solutions. The services vary somewhat by family, as each family has different needs and chooses their level of involvement in the program. Also, the Young Scholars program is free!
GE: What does a family consultant do?
Markow: The Family Consultant works with parents to offer individualized assistance based on the Young Scholar’s unique needs. We see our relationship with the family as a partnership in addressing issues and concerns that arise in the context of raising an exceptionally bright young person. Family Consultants can conduct individualized searches for information, contact educators and administrators as needed, help brainstorm options and explain what we’ve seen work for other Young Scholars. Often, we are simply a supportive sounding board for parents.
GE: Can you give an (anonymous) example of a situation in which you were able to help?
Markow: So many come to mind! We often brainstorm ideas for math or writing that end up being implemented, or we assist the family in finding a local mentor, or we guide the family through finding a local therapist for a Young Scholar who can intellectually understand major life changes like death, but doesn’t have the life experience to cope effectively. Recently, a parent was working with the Young Scholar’s school to make sure his needs were being met in the classroom. The school recognized how few students they had seen at this ability level, so they asked the mom how they could best meet his needs. She wasn’t sure either, so turned to her Family Consultant for ideas. The Family Consultant suggested a few curriculum ideas that we were familiar with and that had worked for other Young Scholars. The school ended up adopting one of those programs and now uses it for the Young Scholar, as well as other bright students at the school.
GE: If readers want to learn more or apply for the YS program, what should they do?
Markow: Interested families may want to visit the Young Scholar website at www.DavidsonGifted.org/YoungScholars/ for additional information about the program, as well as Qualification Criteria and the Young Scholar Application. There is also a link to one parent’s perspective of the Young Scholars program.
Friday, February 27, 2009
Where are they now? (Intel/Westinghouse)
In a little over a week I'll be going down to Washington to write about the winners of this year's Intel Science Talent Search. The modern version of what used to be called the Westinghouse Science Talent Search brings teenage finalists to DC every year, puts their independent research projects through rigorous judging, then awards the top winners big prizes.
I've spent the past year writing a weekly online column for Scientific American about former finalists in the Westinghouse called "Where Are They Now?" A few recent fun ones: Scott Fruhan, a med student/songwriter who actually plays in a band called Heath Street with a friend of mine; Andrew Heafitz, who got a patent for the model rocket camera he built for Westinghouse, and now works on building flying cars; and Jonathan Gershenzon, director of the Max Planck Institute for Chemical Ecology in Germany. He grew up burying his nose in plants because he liked thinking about why they smelled how they smelled and now... he's studying very similar things.
If you haven't had a chance to check out the series, please do! It's a good look at what gifted young people have done and become when they grow up.
I've spent the past year writing a weekly online column for Scientific American about former finalists in the Westinghouse called "Where Are They Now?" A few recent fun ones: Scott Fruhan, a med student/songwriter who actually plays in a band called Heath Street with a friend of mine; Andrew Heafitz, who got a patent for the model rocket camera he built for Westinghouse, and now works on building flying cars; and Jonathan Gershenzon, director of the Max Planck Institute for Chemical Ecology in Germany. He grew up burying his nose in plants because he liked thinking about why they smelled how they smelled and now... he's studying very similar things.
If you haven't had a chance to check out the series, please do! It's a good look at what gifted young people have done and become when they grow up.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Is Genius Born or Learned?
We'll be returning to our Q&As with various folks in gifted education soon (I have several requests out). But in the meantime, I wanted to share an interesting article from Time Magazine (Feb 13): Is Genius Born, or Can it be Learned?
Reporter John Cloud tackles the genius wars going on between people who say that genius is a divine gift, and those who say it's all a matter of nurture and practice (like Malcolm Gladwell, whose book, Outliers, we've discussed here at Gifted Exchange).
It should come as no surprise that more measured heads believe that high achievement is a mix of both, a position taken in Dean Keith Simonton's new book, Genius 101. Gladwell, for instance, took the rather contrarian view that IQ means nothing. After all, the "Termites" (children participating in Lewis Terman's longitudinal study of high IQ young people) did not achieve in a particularly out-sized way compared to what you'd expect from a group of generally well-to-do kids raised by generally-well-educated parents. Geoff Colvin's book, Talent is Overrated, elaborates on the theory with references to three sisters whose parents chose, quite randomly, to make them into chess champions through hours and hours of practice. The idea? Anyone can be a genius if he works hard enough.
According to Cloud, "Simonton rather dismissively calls this the 'drudge theory.' He thinks the real story is more complicated: deliberate practice, he says, is a necessary but not sufficient condition for creating genius. For one thing, you need to be smart enough for practice to teach you something. In a 2002 study, Simonton showed that the average IQ of 64 eminent scientists was around 150, fully 50 points higher than the average IQ for the general population. And most of the variation in IQs (about 80%, according to Simonton) is explained by genetics."
I think most of us here would agree with this nuanced view. Success in many cerebral occupations does require a lot of innate intelligence, just as success in basketball almost always requires some amount of height, and success in modeling requires physical attractiveness. None of these qualities, alas, is evenly distributed in the population. Of course, innate intelligence by itself (or height, or beauty) won't get you too far, something even Julian Stanley, founder of the Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth, said later in his life. As he once told Johns Hopkins magazine, “I used to sort of worship I.Q., but you can't major in I.Q. A high I.Q. and 50 cents can buy you a 50-cent cup of coffee. There's a lot to the work ethic.”
He's onto something, if overstating the case. It's the intersection of intelligence and hard work -- plus some luck and opportunity -- that makes success possible.
So what does this mean for gifted education? The problem is that currently, children with high IQs are identified, but then very little is done to help them develop their talents. We don't give them the opportunity to work hard. We don't give bright young children a chance to spend many many hours in deliberate practice, challenging them to the extent of their abilities. Instead, we give them a little pull-out here, a little award ceremony there, and some chastising to be happy with this because, hey, you're acing the grade level tests. Clearly we can do better (also a subject Cloud wrote about in the past, highlighting the Davidson Academy of Reno in a piece called "Are We Failing Our Geniuses?").
Reporter John Cloud tackles the genius wars going on between people who say that genius is a divine gift, and those who say it's all a matter of nurture and practice (like Malcolm Gladwell, whose book, Outliers, we've discussed here at Gifted Exchange).
It should come as no surprise that more measured heads believe that high achievement is a mix of both, a position taken in Dean Keith Simonton's new book, Genius 101. Gladwell, for instance, took the rather contrarian view that IQ means nothing. After all, the "Termites" (children participating in Lewis Terman's longitudinal study of high IQ young people) did not achieve in a particularly out-sized way compared to what you'd expect from a group of generally well-to-do kids raised by generally-well-educated parents. Geoff Colvin's book, Talent is Overrated, elaborates on the theory with references to three sisters whose parents chose, quite randomly, to make them into chess champions through hours and hours of practice. The idea? Anyone can be a genius if he works hard enough.
According to Cloud, "Simonton rather dismissively calls this the 'drudge theory.' He thinks the real story is more complicated: deliberate practice, he says, is a necessary but not sufficient condition for creating genius. For one thing, you need to be smart enough for practice to teach you something. In a 2002 study, Simonton showed that the average IQ of 64 eminent scientists was around 150, fully 50 points higher than the average IQ for the general population. And most of the variation in IQs (about 80%, according to Simonton) is explained by genetics."
I think most of us here would agree with this nuanced view. Success in many cerebral occupations does require a lot of innate intelligence, just as success in basketball almost always requires some amount of height, and success in modeling requires physical attractiveness. None of these qualities, alas, is evenly distributed in the population. Of course, innate intelligence by itself (or height, or beauty) won't get you too far, something even Julian Stanley, founder of the Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth, said later in his life. As he once told Johns Hopkins magazine, “I used to sort of worship I.Q., but you can't major in I.Q. A high I.Q. and 50 cents can buy you a 50-cent cup of coffee. There's a lot to the work ethic.”
He's onto something, if overstating the case. It's the intersection of intelligence and hard work -- plus some luck and opportunity -- that makes success possible.
So what does this mean for gifted education? The problem is that currently, children with high IQs are identified, but then very little is done to help them develop their talents. We don't give them the opportunity to work hard. We don't give bright young children a chance to spend many many hours in deliberate practice, challenging them to the extent of their abilities. Instead, we give them a little pull-out here, a little award ceremony there, and some chastising to be happy with this because, hey, you're acing the grade level tests. Clearly we can do better (also a subject Cloud wrote about in the past, highlighting the Davidson Academy of Reno in a piece called "Are We Failing Our Geniuses?").
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
The Case for National Standards
American Federation of Teachers president Randi Weingarten had a thought-provoking piece in the Washington Post recently on "The Case for National Standards."
As Weingarten points out, she lives in Washington, DC. She can hop on the metro and get to Virginia and Maryland easily. Yet these states have quite different standards, as do the other 48 states in the union plus DC. Some states have high standards -- like Massachusetts and Minnesota, whose students rank near the top of the world in international comparisons. Others? It's more of a mixed bag. But for purposes of recognizing which states and schools are making adequate yearly progress for No Child Left Behind, the federal government treats these standards as equally valid -- as if (she suggests) the Pittsburgh Steelers had to move 10 yards to get a first down, and the Arizona Cardinals only had to move 7.
This is a point that has been made before, but what's interesting is that Weingarten, the head of a teachers union, is throwing her support behind it. More importantly, she says that the creation of national standards will not lead to teachers becoming robots, simply going through a prescribed curriculum. "Just as different pianists can look at the same music and bring to it unique interpretations and flourishes, various teachers working from a common standard should be able to do the same," she writes.
I have two thoughts about this. First, I recognize that what gifted students often need most in schools is flexibility. I would of course be concerned that national standards -- tied to accountability -- would lead to even more focus on lower achievers at the expense of higher achievers. A recent Fordham report found that NCLB had led to this very result, so NCLB with more teeth could do that even more.
BUT... I would never say that raising standards (if that's what national standards would do) would be a bad thing. Gifted kids, like all kids, need better schools -- ones that demand lots of their students and view themselves as places where kids should be challenged. On the whole, I'm sympathetic to Weingarten's ideas, and am curious what readers here think.
As Weingarten points out, she lives in Washington, DC. She can hop on the metro and get to Virginia and Maryland easily. Yet these states have quite different standards, as do the other 48 states in the union plus DC. Some states have high standards -- like Massachusetts and Minnesota, whose students rank near the top of the world in international comparisons. Others? It's more of a mixed bag. But for purposes of recognizing which states and schools are making adequate yearly progress for No Child Left Behind, the federal government treats these standards as equally valid -- as if (she suggests) the Pittsburgh Steelers had to move 10 yards to get a first down, and the Arizona Cardinals only had to move 7.
This is a point that has been made before, but what's interesting is that Weingarten, the head of a teachers union, is throwing her support behind it. More importantly, she says that the creation of national standards will not lead to teachers becoming robots, simply going through a prescribed curriculum. "Just as different pianists can look at the same music and bring to it unique interpretations and flourishes, various teachers working from a common standard should be able to do the same," she writes.
I have two thoughts about this. First, I recognize that what gifted students often need most in schools is flexibility. I would of course be concerned that national standards -- tied to accountability -- would lead to even more focus on lower achievers at the expense of higher achievers. A recent Fordham report found that NCLB had led to this very result, so NCLB with more teeth could do that even more.
BUT... I would never say that raising standards (if that's what national standards would do) would be a bad thing. Gifted kids, like all kids, need better schools -- ones that demand lots of their students and view themselves as places where kids should be challenged. On the whole, I'm sympathetic to Weingarten's ideas, and am curious what readers here think.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Gifted Education in the Time of Budget Cuts
This has been a year of dreary economic news. When incomes fall and vacant housing increases, that takes a chunk out of state and local tax revenue. Since many states are required by law to balance their budgets, that means that the money has to come from somewhere. Education being a big chunk of the average state budget, any program that is seen as optional (and some that aren't) will get a look.
And so, I'm starting to see headlines about gifted programs being restructured and the like. In Prince George's County, Maryland, school officials are looking at combining some programs and schools. If there is talk of restructuring in your district, please let me know, as I'm trying to make a list.
I have two thoughts about this. As long time readers of this blog know, I have no particular fondness for the "pull out" programs that are labeled by many districts as gifted education. Kids leave their normal classrooms for 90 minutes or so a week to do enrichment activities like studying bugs or Robin Hood, or the culture of Japan, or go on special field trips, etc. You do not have to be gifted to learn about these things, and such programs tend to breed resentment. Plus, while they give gifted kids a social outlet and are always fun, they don't give gifted kids what they really need -- which is academic work that challenges them to the extent of their abilities.
Of course, the problem is that when schools cut these pull-out programs, they tend not to implement the far more effective alternatives, which are either self-contained magnet gifted schools, if your district is big enough, or acceleration (subject matter or whole grade) or some combo of both. Acceleration is effective and costs absolutely nothing. It's also routinely disparaged in districts that should know better. I heard recently from the family of a 4-year-old who wanted to start kindergarten because he was already reading. No dice. If the family had wanted to hold the child back until he was 6, though, so he'd be bigger and better at sports and handwriting and all that good stuff, the district would have had no problem with that. Magnet gifted schools are no more expensive than other magnet schools if you keep the pupil teacher ratio at the same level as other district schools. Kids can be accelerated within such self-contained schools if necessary.
Unfortunately, neither of these ideas are being broadly implemented. It's a missed opportunity. Tough economic times can spur people to re-examine old ways of doing things, but it's never easy.
And so, I'm starting to see headlines about gifted programs being restructured and the like. In Prince George's County, Maryland, school officials are looking at combining some programs and schools. If there is talk of restructuring in your district, please let me know, as I'm trying to make a list.
I have two thoughts about this. As long time readers of this blog know, I have no particular fondness for the "pull out" programs that are labeled by many districts as gifted education. Kids leave their normal classrooms for 90 minutes or so a week to do enrichment activities like studying bugs or Robin Hood, or the culture of Japan, or go on special field trips, etc. You do not have to be gifted to learn about these things, and such programs tend to breed resentment. Plus, while they give gifted kids a social outlet and are always fun, they don't give gifted kids what they really need -- which is academic work that challenges them to the extent of their abilities.
Of course, the problem is that when schools cut these pull-out programs, they tend not to implement the far more effective alternatives, which are either self-contained magnet gifted schools, if your district is big enough, or acceleration (subject matter or whole grade) or some combo of both. Acceleration is effective and costs absolutely nothing. It's also routinely disparaged in districts that should know better. I heard recently from the family of a 4-year-old who wanted to start kindergarten because he was already reading. No dice. If the family had wanted to hold the child back until he was 6, though, so he'd be bigger and better at sports and handwriting and all that good stuff, the district would have had no problem with that. Magnet gifted schools are no more expensive than other magnet schools if you keep the pupil teacher ratio at the same level as other district schools. Kids can be accelerated within such self-contained schools if necessary.
Unfortunately, neither of these ideas are being broadly implemented. It's a missed opportunity. Tough economic times can spur people to re-examine old ways of doing things, but it's never easy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
