coping with curiosity

Several weeks (months!) ago I wrote a post titled 'THAT explains a lot!'.  In the post I described several common characteristics of gifted learners and some of the possible positive and negative behaviors/attitudes we associate with those characteristics; today, I'll address how we, as parents and teachers, can go about addressing one of those characteristics.  We'll take a look at all of them eventually, but today we'll focus on curiosity:

Characteristic: curious, has a variety of interests
Possible Positive Behaviors/Attitudes: asks deep and probing questions; gets excited about ideas; conducts individual research independent of assignments
Possible Negative Behaviors/Attitudes: goes on tangents; no follow-through; has difficulty making academic and social decisions

Teacher: Rather than discouraging creative ideas, work as with students as individually as possible to refine their ideas and help them focus those ideas into channels which accomplish the intent of the assignment.  Gifted students may face particular frustration when their ideas don't translate into the product they hoped to see.  According to Lovecky (1992), "The child needs to know that there is something to be learned from any idea, and doing something that does not turn out may lead in the future to another idea".  If the student is still unhappy with the results of those investigations, validate their feelings but continue to emphasize Lovecky's point.  Remember, the intent of grades is to measure mastery of the material, which can still happen even if the intended ends were a complete failure.

Parent: NEVER discourage your child from asking questions, even if those questions are beyond your ability to answer!  Instead, validate her/his interests and assist your child in locating the resources needed for the question at hand.  Encourage individual investigation, and make sure you familiarize yourself with your child's interest; there's no need to become an expert, but you should know enough to be a sounding board.

When your child has a decision to make, ask her/him about the intended results, and help your child work backward in a logical fashion.  For example, "So you want to go to veterinary school?  Okay, what are the requirements to get in?  What kind of classes will you need to take as an undergraduate?  In order to take those particular classes, which college or university do you think would be the best choice?  What are the admission requirements, and what classes will you need to take in high school?  In order to take those classes, what classes do you need to get right now, in middle school?" and so on...

This goes for all issues related to your child's academic needs: when you are unhappy with your child's teacher or school, speak up!  Please understand that teachers and administrators are doing their best with their available resources, but they may not be aware of your child's needs or know how to help.  Many states have no requirements for teachers to receive training in gifted education, so it may be helpful to meet your child's teacher with prepared articles or resource lists.  Never be afraid to advocate for your child's interests, but remember that concrete suggestions are much better than a list of complaints.

****************************************

Clark, B. (2004).  Tips for parents: Helping parents understand their profoundly gifted children.  Davidson Institute for Talent Development.  Retrieved from http://www.davidsongifted.org/db/Articles_id_10299.aspx

Lovecky, D. (1992).  Exploring social and emotional aspects of giftedness in children.  Roeper Review.  15(1) 18-25.

THAT explains a lot.

"S/he couldn't be gifted; her/his grades are terrible."
"S/he couldn't be gifted; s/he distracts others and is a negative influence."
"S/he couldn't be gifted; s/he never does homework or anything beyond the minimum."

Nope.

I've spoken with teachers who say all of these things to me (and more), and I've spoken with parents of gifted kids who find themselves completely at a loss to understand their children's behavior.  Even though the list below doesn't provide specific strategies to help with some of these negative behaviors and attitudes, hopefully it will help teachers and parents (and students, themselves!) understand why they do what they do.  I'll come back to strategies in a later post.

**IMPORTANT**
No gifted child displays ALL of these characteristics, behaviors, and attitudes ALL the time, but most gifted children display SOME of them SOME or MOST of the time.

Characteristics of the Potentially Gifted Student

(without a documented disability)

Characteristic: learns rapidly
Possible Positive Behaviors/Attitudes: memorizes and masters basic facts quickly; needs 1 to 3 repetitions to master
Possible Negative Behaviors/Attitudes: gets bored easily; resists drill; disturbs others; refuses to complete work on concepts already mastered; resents helping peers

C: advanced vocabulary
PPB/A: communicates ideas well; expresses self in a more mature manner than peers
PNB/A: shows off; invokes peer resentment; purposefully “dumbs down” speech with peers

C: retains a large quantity of information
PPB/A: ready recall and responses; is an "expert" in some topic(s)
PNB/A: monopolizes discussions; resists projects out of academic comfort zone

C: long attention span
PPB/A: sticks with a task or project
PNB/A: disrupts routine tasks; dislikes interruptions

C: curious, has a variety of interests
PPB/A: asks deep and probing questions; gets excited about ideas; conducts individual research independent of assignments
PNB/A: goes on tangents; no follow-through; has difficulty making academic and social decisions

C: works independently
PPB/A: creates and invents beyond assigned tasks; develops products which are very different from those of other students
PNB/A: refuses to work with others; products are extremely eccentric, sometimes to the point of being indecipherable; dominates group projects

C: alert and observant
PPB/A: recognizes problems; is aware of things unnoticed by other students
PNB/A: impolitely corrects adults; ridicules peers for observation failures

C: has a good sense of humor
PPB/A: able to laugh at self
PNB/A: plays cruel jokes or tricks on others

C: comprehends, recognizes relationships
PPB/A: able to solve social problems alone; ponders with depth and multiple perspectives; infers and connects concepts; demonstrates keen sense of fairness
PNB/A: interferes in the affairs of others; is sarcastic or impatient with peers; manipulates information; struggles to move past issues of fairness

C: high academic ability
PPB/A: does school work well; works above peers by 2 grade levels or more
PNB/A: brags; egotistical; impatient with others; deliberately works below ability

C: fluent, verbal facility
PPB/A: forceful with words, numbers; leads peers in positive ways
PNB/A: leads others into negative behavior

C: individualistic
PPB/A: asserts self and ideas; has a sense of own uniqueness; displays spontaneous intellectual outcomes and conclusions
PNB/A: has few friends; irrationally stubborn in beliefs

C: self-motivated, self-sufficient
PPB/A: requires minimum teacher direction or help; is self-critical; is unmotivated by grades
PNB/A: is overly aggressive in challenging authority; is excessively perfectionistic; does not follow through on assignments; does not demonstrate neatness or order in work

Characteristics of the Twice-Exceptional Student

(gifted with a learning or other disability)

Exhibits extensive and high-level spoken vocabulary, but much simpler written vocabulary

Excels in reading comprehension but struggles with or refuses written work (or vice versa)
Has extremely creative ideas, but written expression is very poor (bad spelling, illegible handwriting, etc.)
Obvious brightness is not matched by work produced
Appears unmotivated or unwilling to work when a direct conversation indicates high interest in the topic
Mismatch between parental reports of interests/activities and effort/products in school
Exhibits severe discrepancies between potential and performance

Characteristics of the High Achiever

(teacher-pleaser)

Completes all the work

Not a risk-taker
Very knowledgeable
Very good at lower levels of thinking
Weak at higher levels of thinking
Usually punctual with assignments
Asks primarily “safe” questions
Usually an A student
Scores close to/in the 90th percentile on standardized tests
Needs 6 to 8 repetitions to master
Memorizes well
Works up to 1 grade level above peers
Helpful, likeable, and well-mannered

Volunteers quickly
Follows the rules carefully

*************************************************************

Adapted from:


Goldstein, L.F. (2001). Diamond in the rough. Education Week.

Kingore, B. (2004). Differentiation: simplified, realistic, and effective. Austin, TX: Professional Associates.

Mittan, K. (2006). Teacher pleaser or potentially gifted?: a guide for teachers. Hawthorne, NJ: Educational Impressions, Inc.

Ohio Association for Gifted Children (n.d.). Characteristics of gifted children - positive and negative behaviors which may be exhibited. Retrieved from http://gt.eatonsd.schoolfusion.us/modules/locker/files/get_group_file.phtml?fid=2682406&gid=344078&sessionidec194b0f4c8b8d7d98b6f80e7871a6f8





Thanks, Tamara!

All I have to say is, "AMEN!"

http://blogs.edweek.org/teachers/unwrapping_the_gifted/2012/09/what_it_really_boils_down_to.html

Dig It!

We're currently in the midst of an archaeology unit for 6th and 7th grades, and the students are working on excavation and field lab methods, as well as observation and pathology studies.  Back in August, I contacted Potash Corporation in Aurora, NC to ask about getting some of the waste material from their mine, which is full of marine fossils like bivalves, fish bones, and teeth from sharks, dolphins, and sperm whales.

Just for kicks, when the students asked where I got the dirt, my first answer was, "In three 5-gallon buckets from FedEx".

Anyway, these fossils are 19-20 million years old, and they washed down to the North Carolina coastal plain from the Appalachian mountain system (which includes the Blue Ridge mountains).  This means, of course, that the Blue Ridge mountains were once under the ocean!

Click here to go to Marine Biology Web and learn more about lots of topics related to ocean life.

Is DNA as accurate as we think???

Those interested in following my eighth-graders' journey through It's Not Fair!, our justice unit, might like to take a look at the essay linked below.  Renzulli Learning has this description:

What is the likelihood that someone on trial for murder is innocent, if the odds are a billion to one against anyone else in the world sharing the DNA found at the crime scene? It's more likely than you might think, if you take all the odds into consideration!

http://www.tc3.edu/instruct/sbrown/stat/jury.htm

Let's vote!

In case you aren't aware, there's an election in a few months :)
Many of my students are deeply, emotionally involved in the political process.  Since we're located near the District, part of this fascination is probably because of sheer proximity, but I do have quite a few students with parents who are politicians or who work with politicians and public policy.  Many gifted students also have a keen sense of fairness, an interest in leadership, or a personal connection with a particular issue, so they tend to pay more attention to politics than the average student.

This one's for you!

With this link, you can explore both the history and the math behind the Electoral College, and then work with a computer model and an imaginary country to see whether you can devise a system that would be more fair:

http://www.sciencebuzz.org/topics/electoral-college-math

I'm a little embarrassed...

I'm awfully sorry, everyone.  It's been almost a year since my last post, and I can't believe how quickly it got away from me.  I've started to write so many things, but then something comes up  and I have a meeting or there are stacks of essays to assess or my classroom needs work or there are justsomanyotherthings which are important RIGHT NOW and, before I know it, it's been months.

So, all that to say I'm sorry, please forgive me, and I'll do better, I promise.

Since I have to go assess the aforementioned essays, I'll leave you with a really neat link related to the archaeology unit my 6th- and 7th-graders have just begun.  Enjoy!

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/icemummies/

conflict in the blogosphere...

A couple of items came to my attention today during my usual perusal of the Washington Post Education section. One is a piece by Jay Mathews (again) which, to be fair, decries the not-well-thought-out implementation of required honors courses in Anne Arundel County, but ultimately sticks with his previous claim that all students should take honors classes. Unfortunately, I can't find a link to his original post from several months ago, but I'll work on that and hopefully add it to this page soon.

Of course, since you know how I feel about everything Jay Mathews writes (or, at least, it seems like everything), it left me twitching and frantically typing in the comments section. It turns out I just can't stop myself.

The other is on Valerie Strauss' Answer Sheet blog. In this post, the author challenges the Thomas B. Fordham Institute's conclusion that highly-advanced and gifted students are being shortchanged by our current basic-standards-based system. I think you know which side I support on THAT issue...

I'll try to return and post some analytical-type comments about each one here but, honestly, we have a pile of family coming to our house Sunday, so I might not get to it. But I'll try.

PSAT this Saturday!

Attention 8th-Graders!!!

If you completed and submitted Part I of the AOS application last month, you're registered to take the PSAT at Dominion High School this Saturday, October 15 at 8am. Be there, and don't forget to bring your admission ticket (mailed home the week of October 3).

Good luck!

room for debate

The New York Times Room for Debate on October 3rd focused on the needs and academic gains of high-ability learners and the concept of 'differentiation' in the regular, mainstream classroom. Studies show that although heterogeneous classrooms appear to support achievement for average and struggling students, high-ability students show relatively little achievement growth in this scenario. In other words, everyone else grows while the top-ability groups stagnate.

The question then becomes, "What do we do about it?" Carol Ann Tomlinson of the University of Virginia touts differentiation of instruction as an appropriate remedy, and I agree to a point. As she states, differentiation is a wonderful tool when used appropriately and skillfully; unfortunately, we often throw 35 students spanning 6 or 7 grade levels of ability and/or achievement into one room, and then expect the teacher to essentially individualize instruction. This might be possible in certain subjects or in non-traditional settings which do not emphasize high-stakes tests (Montessori is an obvious example), but you can't pound the round peg of differentiation into the square hole of mainstream, traditional classrooms without two things: adequate professional development and support for teachers and massive reevaluation of the goals of public schooling. So far, no dice.

If our goal is to encourage and equip students to pass multiple-choice tests, drill-and-kill is the way to go, regardless of class make-up. Though certainly not foolproof, it seems to be the best way to get students to fill in the right answers and, since high-ability students tend to pass these tests, it's okay to essentially ignore them; after all, they're a safe source of high scores. We tend to aim instruction at the 'fence-sitters' in this scenario: students who are low-average achievers and right on the edge of passing. There's not much of a push for average students to do more, and certainly not for high-ability students to excel; in fact, sometimes we even hear of high-ability students being denigrated by the teacher for 'reading ahead' or behaving as if they're 'smarter than everyone else'.

If our goal, however, is to encourage and equip students to think creatively, find and solve problems, construct understanding and knowledge, and effectively self-assess and self-evaluate, we have to do better. Differentiation in heterogeneous classrooms is a laudable goal, can be beneficial, and should be done as much as possible, but there is also value in allowing high-ability students to spend a portion of their time with their intellectual peers. Not only does it discourage them from doing "just enough to get by", but it also has benefits for average and struggling students.

Regarding Room for Debate, I wish there had been an actual teacher on the panel. Just one. Everyone who submitted a piece is either a researcher or associated with an advocacy or policy group (which tend to be funded by private interests with agendas of their own), with the exception of one school principal. Once again, those whose experience and opinions might better inform debate (TEACHERS!) are left out. Once again, we've missed an opportunity to elevate the discourse and given disproportionate voice to special interests, some of which are for-profit. I'm disappointed, to say the least.

AOS Part I

**Attention Eighth-Graders**

Application Part I for Academy of Science is due TODAY, September 19!!!

Cooperative Grouping Lesson

I didn't post this lesson example as soon as I anticipated, obviously, but better late than never, right??!!

My students completed the eCybermission project in March of this year. Sponsored by the US Army, it's a problem-finding and -solving competition which requires students to use the scientific method and science, technology, engineering, and/or math concepts to identify and propose solutions to community problems.

My students covered many different issues, from excessive cafeteria waste to acne-causing bacteria, and many were surprised by the solutions they found, not to mention the creativity they didn't realize they possessed. This project would be perfect in a mixed-ability classroom because of the huge diversity of opportunities and challenges it offers, especially since it places such emphasis on teamwork.

The unit plan I wrote is here.

And one of my groups was a winner :)

Cooperative Learning...or...Heterogeneous Learning Groups

Ah, a safe topic. Or not.

Cooperative learning is one of the most commonly used, yet poorly implemented, strategies in the classroom teacher's toolbox, and it seems each individual teacher and administrator is either strongly in favor of using it often and for many different types of tasks, or strongly opposed to using it at all for anything. Personally, I'm in the middle. Having been the child who was expected to teach material to my classmates regularly and remembering how frustrated I felt (I'm talking to YOU, certain elementary school teacher who I will not name), I've always been wary of using it with regard to gifted and academically advanced students.

However, cooperative learning groups have undeniable advantages when it comes to learning to work with human beings who have a wide range of backgrounds, skill sets, interests, and talents. Since I'm a gifted resource teacher, this post will focus, as usual, on cooperative learning as it relates specifically to gifted students, though I will also briefly touch on some issues relevant to other ability groups.

One thing is critically important to keep in mind; this scenario (and the accompanying example lessons) is specific to public schools with relatively large class sizes. It would be wonderful to have very small classes such that we could effectively individualize education, and it would be wonderful to have a situation where teachers could function more as 'guides' who help students design their own educations rather than 'instructors' who must often attempt to deliver knowledge as if it was a newspaper, but THIS IS NOT REALITY for the vast majority of American children. Most teachers face daily challenges to creativity and autonomy due to SOLs, pacing guides, administrative directives, common lesson plans and assessments, and other imposed parameters. Should we work to change the structure of public school? I would argue 'yes' but, at the same time, we continue working within that structure because we have no choice.

****************************************

Imagine a scenario in which a gifted student, Steve, is expressing general unhappiness and boredom in his fifth-grade class. His teacher, Ms. Goodman, recently attended a professional development workshop focused on cooperative learning groups, and she has been regularly implementing the strategy since returning to the classroom. Steve's mother has contacted Ms. Goodman to express her concerns, and stated that Steve feels he is expected to constantly teach material to the less-advanced students in his group in order to keep up and complete assignments. Ms. Goodman tells the mother that the other children are showing some academic enhancement and advancement as a result of working with Steve, and she expresses her strong conviction about cooperative learning as a tool for developing skills in working with a large range of backgrounds and behaviors. Steve's mother is dissatisfied with this response and tells Ms. Goodman that it is not Steve's responsibility to teach or inspire other students at the expense of his own continuous academic progress.

*************************************

First, what exactly is cooperative learning? According to Johnson and Johnson (1994), cooperative learning has five essential elements:

1. Clearly perceived positive interdependence
2. Considerable promotive (face-to-face) interaction
3. Clearly perceived individual accountability and personal responsibility to achieve the group’s goals
4. Frequent use of the relevant interpersonal and small-group skills
5. Frequent and regular group processing of current functioning to improve the group’s future effectiveness

Ideally, cooperative learning groups should consist of a range of abilities, backgrounds, interests, and skills and, in order to be effective for both average- and high-ability students, should be used mainly for tasks requiring complex-level thinking skills. Work which could be completed alone or a task which will be assessed with a single collective grade are particularly poor candidates for this strategy because they directly violate the first and third principles, respectively (Johnson & Johnson, 1994; Huss, 2006).

And now, back to our scenario...

Steve’s mother is correct in several areas. Steve should not be expected to ignite other children "at the expense of his own continuous progress”. Ms. Goodman is using cooperative grouping for most, if not all, of the students’ independent practice time; this type of implementation is generally not appropriate for a gifted student (Huss, 2006; Johnson & Johnson, 1994).

Asking (or simply expecting) Steve to teach the material to the other students in his group is not fair to him or to them. Though cooperative learning can be marginally helpful for average and struggling students with regard to basic knowledge and skills (as measured by standardized tests, themselves known to be unreliable indicators for gifted children, at best), the strategy has not been shown to consistently address the higher thinking levels critical for advanced students (VanTassel-Baska et al, 1992). In fact, due to gifted students’ often advanced knowledge-, comprehension-, and application-level understanding of material, cooperative learning can at times be no different from peer tutoring, practically speaking (ibid). Webb (1982) found advanced students are often not effective with regard to explaining material to lower-level learners, and they require explicit instruction and modeling in this skill, which does not generally occur (VanTassel-Baska et al, 1992). In other words, even when tasked with explaining material to others, gifted students often prove to be rather poor teachers.

Cooperative learning can also involve several negative social effects for struggling students and students with disabilities: they are often perceived negatively in the first place, they are easy blame targets if the project is not successful, and they may require instruction and modeling in appropriate peer interaction before they can be successful in a group situation at all (ibid). This research shows us two things; not only is cooperative learning often not appropriately advanced or challenging for gifted students, but it is not reliably positive for many of the students who share their groups.

At the same time, however, Ms. Goodman is correct in her assertion that learning to work with the full diversity of human behaviors is a good thing. As stated by Sapon-Shevin and Schniedewind (1993), cooperative learning is designed to encourage “learning to respect others' differences and to interact successfully with people from different racial, ethnic, religious, and socioeconomic groups and whose skills are widely divergent”. There can be no doubt this is an important aim. In this sense, the social-interactive effects associated with appropriately-implemented cooperative learning may be helpful for all students.

It seems a compromise is in order. Steve’s mother is certainly justified in her dissatisfaction with the extent of heterogeneous cooperative learning in Ms. Goodman’s class, but Ms. Goodman also appears to have good intentions in emphasizing social interactions and understanding between her students. The major problem appears to be implementation. The key to cooperative learning as a successful tool for gifted learners lies in limiting the scope to “challenging, creative, open-ended, and higher order thinking tasks” (Huss, 2006). Rather than using it for every independent practice activity, Ms. Goodman should limit the use of cooperative learning to specific lessons and situations in order to avoid emphasizing the needs of struggling students to the detriment of gifted children (Fiedler et al, 2002).

************************************

I'll post a lesson example (actually, it will probably be more like three or four class periods of 45 minutes each at the middle school level, due to the complexity of the project) tomorrow. If you'd like a preview, though, check out Ecybermission's website for a basic overview of the community problem-solving competition my students completed at the beginning of this month.

How does ability grouping benefit students in the regular classroom?

The most appropriate words come, in fact, from a student himself: “When Bill (the gifted one) was in class, it was like the sun shining on a bright, clear day. But, when he went out to work with other gifted kids, it was like when the sun goes over the horizon. The rest of us were like the moon and the stars; that’s when we finally got a chance to shine” (Fiedler, 1980, quoted by Rogers, 2002).
In other words, we do not know that of which students are capable if they are never given a chance to show it. Many educators assume average-ability students will reach to match the achievements of their high-ability classmates if they are placed in the same classes, but if they feel constantly and consistently outshone, this strategy may well have a deleterious effect on them instead.

As stated by Feldhusen (1989), "...grouping of gifted and talented students in special classes with a differentiated curriculum, or as a cluster group in a regular heterogeneous classroom (but again with differentiated curriculum and instruction), leads to higher academic achievement and better academic attitudes for the gifted and leads to no decline in achievement or attitudes for the children who remain in the regular heterogeneous classroom".

As I stated in my previous post, "We do not even blink when one group of athletes is placed on the varsity team while others play JV, nor do we think twice about providing special education services to students who struggle due to various disabilities (Pare, 2004). People tend not to see these things as “giving one group an unfair advantage”; JV teams provide places for athletes to hone their skills while still receiving playing time, while those with already-developed and/or extraordinary abilities are not forced to do drills and exercises they do not need. Special education services permit certain students the accommodations they need to learn and grow at an appropriate and reasonable pace, while allowing other students to learn and grow at a more accelerated tempo. Why should appropriately serving gifted students be any different?"

Some argue ability grouping is damaging to the self-esteem of students who are NOT placed in the upper-level groups. There are two problems with this argument; first, there are no studies (to the best of my knowledge) which corroborate this view. Self-esteem is affected by so many factors that it is impossible to attribute it to a single incident or situation (Kulik, 1992; Pare, 2004). In fact, Kulik's (1992) research finds that classroom impacts on self-esteem actually have a leveling effect, and he concludes that "no one program is really any more detrimental than any other program in producing negative self-concepts" (quoted by Pare, 2004).

Second, we tend not to emphasize self-esteem issues when placing children in special education services or separating them into appropriate athletic teams. We do this because we know we're putting them into the programs which will most effectively serve their needs and help them succeed, and we communicate this intent to these children. Again, why should appropriately serving gifted students be any different?

A successful classroom/gifted resource teacher relationship can result in the best outcome possible: flourishing gifted students, as well as typical students who feel heard and valued, are able to step up their creativity, and do not feel outshone in class. If, as Fiedler, Lange and Winebrenner (2002) say, “…one goal of education is to help all students develop a realistic appraisal of their own ability”, classroom and gifted resource teachers must find a way to successfully collaborate.

If it is true that students are entitled to a free and appropriate public education (IDEA), classroom and gifted resource teachers must find a way to successfully collaborate. If it is true that school systems are currently “giving tacit approval to create underachievement in one ability group so that the needs of the other ability groups can be served” (Fiedler, Lange, and Winebrenner, 2002), classroom and gifted resource teachers must find a way to successfully collaborate in order to ensure that this is not the case.

Ability grouping is NOT tracking...and here's why

“Grouping all the gifted students together is tantamount to racism. The students will be tracked and I am morally against this.”

One can make two major arguments in response to this statement. First, gifted students do not necessarily have to be grouped together in one homogeneous unit all the time. We might use within-class grouping, cluster grouping, cross-grade grouping, subject-specific grouping, pull-out programs, and/or full-class heterogeneous grouping as appropriate, and these can all be flexible options (Allan, 1991; Gentry & Owen, 1999; Rogers, 2002; Rogers, Re-Forming Gifted Education).

There is no reason these opportunities should be seen as set in stone; the idea of tracking, where identified GT students are always together for every class (and other students are effectively blocked from participating in compacted, higher-level courses), is unreasonable if we consider the myriad ways and speeds at which children learn and grow. This is one of the reasons Virginia now requires annual screening of all students for GT services (8VAC20-40-40); children change, and we have to give abilities and talents a chance to emerge.

It is true some students show intellectual giftedness in all areas of the curriculum, but most have strengths and weaknesses; advanced in math does not necessarily mean advanced in language arts. Flexible grouping, a major tenet of differentiated instruction (see Carol Ann Tomlinson for lots of information about this), is designed to address just these types of scenarios.

The second tactic involves challenging the very assumption of a superior/inferior dichotomy. As stated by Fiedler, Lange, and Winebrenner (2002), “…being able to function at an advanced level intellectually does not, automatically, make an individual better than anyone else. It merely implies a difference that requires an educational response that may be erroneously interpreted by some as giving one group an unfair advantage”.

We do not even blink when one group of athletes is placed on the varsity team while others play JV, nor do we think twice about providing special education services to students who struggle due to various disabilities (Pare, 2004). People tend not to see these things as “giving one group an unfair advantage”; JV teams provide places for athletes to hone their skills while still receiving playing time, while those with already-developed and/or extraordinary abilities are not forced to do drills and exercises they do not need. Special education services permit certain students the accommodations they need to learn and grow at an appropriate and reasonable pace, while allowing other students to learn and grow at a more accelerated tempo. Why should appropriately serving gifted students be any different?

Rather than assuming intellectually advanced students will be seen (and see themselves) as superior to others, we should be attempting to understand gifted students and giftedness in the context of individual differences, just like we do with athletics, fine arts, and other areas (Fiedler, Lange, & Winebrenner, 2002; Rogers, 2002).

Insisting, instead, that all students be grouped heterogeneously at all times has a terrible consequence of its own; we actually encourage elitist attitudes among gifted students by ensuring they will always be “the smartest kids in each class”. Unless they are appropriately challenged by spending at least some of their time with intellectual peers, they may develop the very attitude many seek to avoid by refusing them these crucial interactions (Fiedler, Lange, & Winebrenner, 2002).

eCybermission Part I

Attention students!!! Those of you who are working on an eCybermission Mission Folder should make sure you're asking yourself the following questions as you select a Mission Challenge and begin designing your experiments:

1. What community PROBLEM are we trying to solve? Designing a science experiment is fun and intellectually stimulating, but remember this is a problem-solving competition.

2. How does our EXPERIMENT address our chosen problem and support finding a real solution (or part of a solution)? Make sure your experiment(s) are directly related to the problem at hand.

3. What MATERIALS will we need for our project? Special note: if your experiment will involve animals of any kind (including invertebrates), you must design your experiment and clear it with me before moving forward so as to avoid potential ethical problems.

There will, of course, be more pieces of advice as we move forward, but this is it for the early phases. Have a great break!

Jay Mathews has it wrong!

Washington Post education blogger Jay Mathews' post this morning was completely off the mark. With a title like "Why urban schools don't need gifted programs", I couldn't exactly stand by and say nothing. See his post and my reply (as username aec7c) here.

Please comment on his post! Make sure he knows he's dead wrong and gifted programs ARE necessary in all districts!

For your enjoyment (and frustration)...

This past summer, Virginia Senator Mark Warner proposed the elimination of the Jacob K. Javits Gifted and Talented Students Education Program, currently the only source of federal funding for gifted education and research. A classmate of mine recently composed a poem (in the style of 'Twas the Night Before Christmas) drawing both silly and serious attention to the crisis of funding for gifted children. With her permission, I've reprinted her entire post:

During this “Season of Giving,” I know we are all busy with holiday traditions. Some are worried about finding the perfect gift, and others are busy monitoring their bank accounts so that they have enough to give and get by. It’s also a good time to think about the children who look to us with that sparkle in their eyes as they enjoy the season themselves. For a moment, if we could turn our attention away from our traditions, it is those children who are suffering due to the huge crisis facing our educational system. The government has worked for years to “raise” the bar so that children who were not achieving can achieve. This movement of No Child Left Behind has been successful for those struggling students, but in the fury of change, our gifted and talented population has been forgotten and neglected. But, in the spirit of the holidays, my poem should make you all aware of the steps that need to happen so that ALL of our children can reach their greatest and fullest potential.

‘Twas a Gifted Funding Crisis

‘Twas the day before class, when all through the schools

Not a teacher was smiling, a budget was balanced by fools.

The posters were hung by the doorways and such,

But the funding for gifted, there was nothing to touch.

All children would sit lined up in their seats,

While teachers felt sorry for the “learning elite.”

And Johnny, in his boredom, and Suzie’s blank stare,

But the teacher was instructed, “The low kids - prepare.”

(Mary Jordan, “Gifted Pupils Bored, Study Says”)

When out in the halls there arose such a noise,

A look out the door showed a small number of young girls and some boys.

Away to a private school soon they would go,

For the budget only supported kids who were average or low.

(Video “One Size Fits All Doesn’t Fit All Learners”)

Oh, and the football team, too, they were not ignored.

For in their new field house,beautiful new uniforms were stored.

And don’t forget the nice raises some people saw,

“We are obligated to provide some educational benefits…”or so says the law.

And yet, what about those who are talented, you wonder!
(Kristen R. Stephens, “Gifted Education and the Law”)

"Now Peter! Now, Sarah! Don’t forget twins Ben and Bryan!

Come on, Judy! And Claudia! And Rebecca and Ryan!

To the top of your class is where you belong

All you ever wanted was for your curriculum to be strong."

And then, in a rush, we heard from the Super,

“We think we may have found, in our budget, a blooper,”

As I looked at him gladly and was starting to dream,

“Yes, we have found extra money to start a new golf team!”
(Philip Walzer & Susan E. White, “Are Students Being Shortchanged?”)

So our smartest of smart continue to languish and slide,

To the lowest of low, on this sad budget ride.

We’re ranked last as compared to other like nations,

Just because some do not know the value of great educations.

(Mary Jordan, “Gifted Pupils Bored, Study Says”)

In a regular class, the gifted yearn to fit in,
The teacher, while nice, is not trained to teach them.
These children who require more to school than what’s there,
Acceleration, AP classes, independent study, or even a science fair.
(Sandra S. Jowers, “Gifted is Special Education”)

AYP was successful but ignored a small group,

The gifted and talented, test scores took a swoop.

And with no differentiation year after year,

Those artists and doctors are now your cashiers!

The answers are simple, but someone must act,

You are armed with some knowledge and many a fact!

Do not ignore what’s happening in your very schools,

Your future needs funding, not a new swimming pool.

But the teacher spoke not a word, and went straight to his task,

Overflowing young minds with the basics of Math.

And Moms and Dads, and Grandparents, too,

Didn’t advocate for change for this talented crew!
(Joyce Van Tassel-Baska, Ph.D. “Basic Educational Options for Gifted Students in Schools”)

Go to your school board, and Senators, and Congress and more,
And fight for the rights in this educational war.

For “little is much” we often do jest,

But it’ll be a teacher who can use a little money the best.

R. Rakow

AOS Application Part I Due TODAY!!!

Attention eighth-graders: the first part of the Academy of Science application is due online by 11:59pm tonight. Since midnight will technically be tomorrow, YES, YOU MUST SUBMIT IT BEFORE THEN NO MATTER HOW SILLY THAT SEEMS!!!

Submitting your application on time will automatically register you to take the PSAT on October 16th at Dominion High School, so you don't need to worry about signing up separately.

Good luck!

Motivation: The Blame Game 1

This series on under- and selective-achievement will not be posted consecutively due to the start of school and important information for my own students, but eventually I'll get to all of them. Fair warning: these posts will be on the serious academic side, with proper APA citations and everything. Prepare yourself.

Neumeister and Hébert (2003) identified four categories of factors which influence under- and selective achievement by gifted students: individual, family, school, and social. This post will focus on several aspects of the “individual” category, and subsequent entries will tackle additional individual factors as well as the other three categories. The final post in this series will address specifics of what we (students, peers, parents, teachers, administrators, counselors, and other influential adults) can do to address the problems of low motivation and underachievement.

*************************************************

Boredom is, of course, a major problem for gifted students, and it is created by a combination of individual (personality, psychology) and school (content, instruction, learning environment) factors (Kanevsky and Keighley, 2003). A second central issue is perfectionism or unrealistic expectations. In other words, if students are overly self-critical or set goals which are unreasonably high, they set themselves up to fail at the present task and to underachieve in the future in order to avoid making the same mistakes (Frey, 2002; Siegle, 2006).

Hébert (1998), in his research on underachievement by black male students, focused on psychological factors. In his summation of Ford’s 1996 research, he noted her emphasis on adults’ ability to recognize giftedness as it is influenced by “cultural, racial, economic, and linguistic backgrounds”; it logically follows that educators’ failure to make these connections results in a school experience that is “less relevant and less personally meanintful [sic]”.

These factors could be viewed as being “the student’s fault” since they certainly incorporate elements of personality and personal responsibility for learning, but we must also recognize our own responsibilities as educators. Should we not be making the participatory experience of “school” relevant for our students? Why do we expect them to care if we are not providing them with real, significant, and applicable information and skills? Cross (2002) asked an interesting question: “What if we put the well-being of the individual student (including gifted students) first in planning and carrying out school activities?” Students surely must bear some responsibility for creating a meaningful and useful school experience, but we must also do our part in crafting the environments, materials, and relationships that will be models for their future interactions.

***********************

Cross, T. (2002). Putting the well-being of all students (including gifted students) first. Gifted Child Today, 25(4), 14-17.

Frey, C. (2002). Dealing with the needs of underachieving gifted students in a suburban school district: What works!. The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, Spring.

Hébert, T. (1998). Gifted black males in an urban high school: Factors that influence achievement and underachievement. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 21(4), 385-414.

Kanevsky, L. & Keighley, T. (2003). To produce or not to produce?: Understanding boredom and the honor in underachievement. Roeper Review, 26(1), 20-28.

Neumeister, K. & Hébert, T. (2003). Underachievement versus selective achievement: Delving deeper and discovering the difference. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 26(3), 221-238.

Siegle, D. (2006). 10 tips for breaking the underachievement cycle. EduFest presentation.