Gifted Atlanta

I maintain this blog and web site to help make gifted children’s lives better. I can only guess you’re here because you care about that, too.

But who are these “gifted” kids? What does that label mean?

Some think a gifted child is one who has met the official requirements to enroll in special classes at school. Nothing more.

But being gifted means a lot more. It means a child’s brain works differently – it’s wired to absorb, master, and synthesize information more efficiently and effectively than an average person’s.

In an article worth reading (see link below), gifted advocate Suki Wessling says gifted children could more accurately be called “non-neurotypical.” In fact, Wessling argues we might be more successful winning support for our kids if we stopped calling them “gifted” – a word that implies advantage and elitism – and chose another term that would emphasize these children’s neurological differences.

By accentuating the neurological variation, perhaps we could convince educators and policy makers that gifted kids need a different educational approach. They learn differently, and must be taught differently. Gifted programs aren’t just a nice extra, but a necessity. More important, a suitable gifted education can’t consist solely of a couple of hours of enrichment each week. Gifted education has to extend to every classroom.

Whether they’re learning the alphabet or astrophysics, gifted children pick up new ideas with considerably less repetition than average kids. They not only take in new information quickly, but also are adept at integrating new knowledge with what they already know. They ask more questions, and yearn to explore with more depth, unsatisfied by the limited information in the textbook. No wonder they get bored and frustrated when they’re subjected to the slow pace of the general classroom, with constant review both during the school day and in the homework they are assigned.

Some schools try to address the needs of the gifted by grouping them in classes with high achievers. That provides a marginal improvement. But high-achieving students and gifted children are not the same, and their educational needs are not the same.

Put simply, a high achiever is a student who performs well in school, gets good grades, and scores well on standardized tests. Smart kids who work hard are your typical high achievers. Some high achievers are gifted, but not all. Likewise, not all gifted kids are high achievers. Some of them don’t adapt well to the structure of school, and therefore don’t attain academic success. Thomas Edison wouldn’t have been considered a high achiever in school, but I dare you to deny his giftedness.

The National Association for Gifted Children muddied these waters when it changed its definition of gifted individuals to “those who demonstrate outstanding levels of aptitude or competence” [emphasis added]. That’s a disappointing move from our leading advocacy organization. To say that competence is the same as aptitude – that high achievement is the same as giftedness – is to measure the end point without looking at the path taken to get there. And it’s in the path that we see the distinction.

Imagine two middle-school boys, Henry and Gabe, who both play the piano. Henry, who dreams of attending Julliard, practices two hours a day with intense focus. Gabe is a prodigy who sight reads new pieces and practices just one hour a week, his practice sessions a mix of playing the assigned music and venturing off into his own spontaneous compositions. Both play beautifully. Go to their recital, and you might not be able to distinguish one from the other, but there’s no denying they learn differently.

This is not to say Gabe is a better musician, just that he learns and experiences music differently, in an atypical way. High achievers deserve great respect for their work habits, passion, and dedication, and certainly hard work can surpass raw talent. But the gifted child and the non-gifted high achiever do not have the same educational needs. Would you put Gabe and Henry in a piano class together? Of course not. Gabe would be stifled, or Henry would be overwhelmed, or both. Both these young pianists may be high achievers, but we can’t educate both with the same approach.

Likewise, we can’t adequately serve gifted children by lumping them in with high-achieving students. Advanced classes may teach material that’s ahead of the standard curriculum, but the demographics being what they are, the high achievers will tend to outnumber the gifted kids, even in an advanced class. So, these classes are often taught with the pacing, limited scope, and higher level of repetition meant for a non-gifted student. A high achiever class – or even a high achiever magnet program – does not necessarily meet a gifted learner’s needs.

In an ideal world, a gifted child would be afforded the same level of attention given to other “special needs” kids, with an individualized education program (IEP) and supplementary classroom resources. After all, some of our brightest learners are as far off the IQ bell curve as kids diagnosed as developmentally disabled – just in the opposite direction. Furthermore, giftedness doesn’t affect just intellect. It includes a whole slate of social and emotional characteristics that can affect the child’s overall well-being.

But ours is not an ideal world. It’s a world where plenty of people still think the whole concept of giftedness is a ploy by privileged snobs to get special benefits for their coddled kids. (See the comments written in response to a column I wrote in 2013 for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.)

This bias against giftedness makes it harder for all of us to get our kids’ needs met, but those who are hurt the most by these accusations of privilege, ironically, are the gifted kids who are socioeconomically disadvantaged. They are every bit as different from the norm as gifted kids from wealthier families, yet they have little or no access to the kind of enrichment opportunities listed on this website. They have only their local schools to meet their educational needs. That’s why it’s essential that we offer specialized gifted education in school.

The more we advocate for the gifted, the more we get others to understand that these children have legitimate neurological differences that create special learning needs, the more we stand up and insist that those needs be met, the greater our hope that all gifted kids – not just our own – will flourish.

They are our best chance for a better future. These kids, these different thinkers with their atypical brains, are the ones who will solve the world’s big problems.

We need them. And they need us.

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

For further reading:

“Divorcing the G-Word: A Parent’s Suggestion for Defining Giftedness,” by Suki Wessling, published in the summer 2013 issue of Gifted Education Press Quarterly (Wessling’s article is on page four)

“The bright child vs. the gifted learner: What’s the difference?” from the Gifted-Ed Guru blog of Psychology Today magazine

“High Achievers and Gifted Learners: Can They Mix?” (PDF), by Rosemary Cathcart, published by the George Parkyn National Centre for Gifted Education

During the years I’ve been writing this blog, I’ve avoided using it as a soapbox. But today, I feel compelled to take a stand — and I’m asking you to do the same by writing a letter to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

If you saw John Rosemond’s column in this weekend’s Atlanta Journal-Constitution, then you already know why I’m so worked up. If you didn’t, the brief synopsis is, a mother complained that her nine-year-old gifted child dawdles with his homework and has mediocre performance in school. Rosemond’s response said that being identified as gifted and talented has probably ruined the kid.

It turns out, the print version of the AJC omitted the most disparaging of Rosemond’s comments. Here’s a more complete excerpt, as can be read online:

“First, the fact that the school has identified your son as “gifted and talented” may be part of the problem. My finding is that a good number of children who’ve been so identified seem to feel that their mere participation in G&T programs entitles them to good grades no matter how much effort they put into their schoolwork. So they do just enough to get by and no more. The further problem is that schools will not, generally speaking, lower the boom on these kids. Teachers continue giving them decent report card grades even though they don’t complete assignments or turn in work, do poorly on tests, and so on. And once a child’s been promoted to G&T status, demotion is virtually out of the question. These kids are smart all right. They’re smart enough to figure out that the only consequence of their lack of effort is that adults get upset.”

It’s bad enough that Rosemond’s advice — which went on beyond this paragraph — ignored the most likely reason for this child’s struggles: he’s bored because he’s not being challenged. But this blanket accusation that gifted children are arrogant and conniving is reprehensible, and Rosemond’s use of the word “finding” to imply it’s based on actual research makes it worse.

This is the second time this summer that Rosemond has belittled gifted children and/or gifted education. (You can see the prior example at http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/06/10/2952680/john-rosemond-should-child-be.html)

Speaking out against these attacks on the gifted is unlikely to change Rosemond’s mind, but maybe, just maybe, our rebuttals can offer hope and support to parents of gifted children — parents who need to understand the real reasons why gifted children sometimes struggle.

According to a bulletin from the National Association for Gifted Children (NAGC), a bill that would call for greater support of education of gifted children will be introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives in the next few weeks.

The bill, known as the TALENT Act (S.512), requires that states release the data they have collected about gifted students’ achievement, allowing the public to better understand how we are serving gifted students from various socio-economic groups. It also would require  professional development for teachers in identifying and serving gifted students; allow the use of Title I funds to be used for training teachers in gifted education; and provide funding for continued research into the most effective methods of teaching gifted students.

How can you help? Contact our U.S. senators, Johnny Isakson and Saxby Chambliss, and ask that they sign on as co-sponsors of this legislation.

National education policy has not made gifted education a priority. Let’s make our voices heard!

Parents of gifted kids spend a lot of time trying to advocate just for our individual children, making sure their needs are met. But from time to time, opportunities arise for us to push for programs that would help the entire gifted population.

This is one of those times.

The U.S. Congress has two pieces of legislation under consideration, and the more constituents they hear from who support that legislation, the better the chances they’ll give it their attention.

First is funding for the Javits Gifted and Talented Education Act. Javits provides funds for research into how to better teach gifted students, especially those who are socio-economically disadvantaged.  The program has been around for years, but in recent years has lost its funding. President Obama’s proposed 2013 budget did not include Javits funding, but members of the appropriations committee can still speak up in support of Javits. The only member of Congress from metro Atlanta who is on this committee is U.S. Rep. Tom Graves. If you live in his district, you have the opportunity to contact him in support of funding this program.

Second is support for the TALENT Act, an amendment to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) that would require states to do more for gifted students. This bill was introduced and referred to committee a year ago. (See related post.) The bill needs cosponsors to help it gain momentum. Any member of the Senate or House can cosponsor the bill, regardless of committee assignments. You can show your support by sending an e-mail to Senator Saxby Chambliss and Senator Johnny Isakson. To contact your representative in the U.S. House, you can use the Write Your Representative tool.

A basic tenet of advocacy for gifted education is that gifted children come from all racial, ethnic and socio-economic backgrounds. That’s why advocates are always pushing for equal access to gifted education for all children, regardless of their family’s income.

Unfortunately, in many cases, children in schools that serve wealthier kids still get more opportunities than poorer children. That was the stated conclusion of a new study released by ProPublica, a non-profit, investigative journalism group. ProPublica compared schools, districts and states across the nation, evaluating the percentage of kids who take gifted or advanced classes, and how that percentage differed according to the wealth of the student population (as measured by the number of children receiving free or reduced price lunch).

The good news is that overall, Georgia seems to do better than some states in giving all children access to advanced learning. We have a higher percentage of disadvantaged children than the national average, yet we have a slightly higher rate of enrollment in gifted programs — 11 percent —  than the national average. We also do better than the national average in terms of the percentage of our students who take advanced math, chemistry and Advanced Placement classes.

However, the results for metro Atlanta schools show that school districts with more underprivileged children do have a lower rate of enrollment in gifted programs.

To see the data for yourself, go to the Georgia results page. From there, you can drill down to view results for your school district and, in some cases, your individual school. (Not every school is listed in the data.)