So When Do We Get a Gift?

     What scares me the most in the current economic climate is not the lack of teaching materials, not the loss of classroom space, not even the constant anxiety of whether or not I will have a job next year. What scares me is how when times get tough and powers that be start looking at cuts, first on the chopping block in many states seems to focus on either cutting education for gifted children or modifying it to uselessness. I have taught that demographic for a decade, raised two g/t darlings of my own for 2 1/2 decades, and walked the gifted walk myself for five plus decades (never mind how many pluses go with that.) These children are very close to my heart and mind and I am unapologetically passionate about them.

     Over the years I have watched services ebb and flow for gifted children depending on the political climate.  Right now, the climate is not a friendly one across this country for those at the top of the academic ladder. I hear administrators and education pundits push for a new age in learning where each child is addressed as an individual. Apparently, that idea of individuality works unless you are one of those who have long ago mastered the minimum skills sanctioned by those who decide on curriculum. Advanced thinkers such as Sir Ken Robinson (http://sirkenrobinson.com/skr/who) push for educational individuality and more fostering of creativity in our students. He isn't speaking about just gifted students, or just average students, or just those students with learning difficulties, he means all of them. You hear the same message from Daniel Pink (http://www.danpink.com/), George Lucas (http://www.edutopia.org/), Sylvia Rimm (http://www.sylviarimm.com/), and many more. But by the time the message sinks down to the local school level, the quest for individuality is watered down and interest is directed only toward those the school districts fear will lower their public rankings.

     I live in a state where education of those identified as above the norm is mandated. But the definition is left deliberately vague, and both identification methods and appropriate services are ideas left twisting in the wind. Identification can range from testing by licensed professionals all the way to a teacher who needs to get a child out of her hair for a little while each week. Services can range from a magnet school all the way to sitting in the back of the regular classroom writing an extra report to keep a child busy. Oversight of services for those in need of gifted services is spotty at best and left to school boards who may or may not understand the needs of all students in their district.

     Perhaps the biggest problem is that any attempts to define "gifted" leave much to be desired. Is it a physical condition? Is it environmental or genetic? Is it learned? Does it change over time? And one of the biggest questions...how can I get it if I don't already have it? That question alone is what makes it one of the most misunderstood educational labels of all time.

     There are advances in cognitive science which are making some headway into understanding what make the gifted different from the norm (NIMH, http://www.nimh.nih.gov/science-news/2006/cortex-matures-faster-in-youth-with-highest-iq.shtml, Rubinstein, http://www.edutopia.org/multiple-intelligences-brain-research, just for two). We're still a long way from having a good answer to most of the questions about how humans learn, but we do know we don't all learn the same way.

     What I can tell you is from my in-the-pit-hands-on-living-it-everyday perspective: gifted children ARE very different from the mainstream students teachers see in their classrooms on a daily basis. And services, curriculum, and expectations MUST differ for these students. If you can go into a mixed ability classroom and teach a divergent-thinking lesson to everyone that's wonderful and should be done everyday by the general classroom teacher. But bear in mind it does NOT meet the specific needs of the gifted population within that room. If instruction is understandable for all, at the same pace, and takes all learners to the exact same conclusion, it is not differentiated for anyone. Inclusion in regular classrooms may be wonderful for some children who very much need the social skills and acceptability those classes can provide. But the regular classroom is the most restrictive environment a gifted student faces in their educational career.  Its focus is on a level far below what they can achieve. Pull out programs are better than inclusion but not as good as a magnet program. Gifted students are different 24/7, not just for a few hours a day. But even magnets can boil down to simple acceleration at times and are still not the epitome for the gifted.     

     The individuality of the type of school paradigms pushed by pundits is a great fit for those identified as gifted. Being able to move through curriculum freely, without being locked down by a "manufacturing date" (Robinson, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDZFcDGpL4U&feature=share), having an understanding of asynchronous development (Tolan, http://www.stephanietolan.com/gt_as_asynch.htm), and allowing students to collaborate with whomever they need to, whenever they need to (NAGC, http://www.nagc.org/index.aspx?id=162 and Tinzmann, http://www.arp.sprnet.org/admin/supt/collab2.htm) are concepts which have been endorsed as best practices for the gifted for many years. It's no surprise this type of differentiation would also benefit all learners. We should not, however, walk back these practices at the gifted level as we strive to pull forward all other learners. It's counterproductive.

     For now, we need to recognize that being identified gifted means a child has needs not able to be met in a current general education classroom with the regular curriculum. They are a special needs population and need educators highly specialized in understanding and addressing their needs. If the needs can be addressed within the mainstream then the label of gifted is just that...a label, not a learning issue. Just as schools and classrooms differ across districts, states, and especially countries, the needs of students within those classrooms will also widely differ. And it explains why only one definition of giftedness doesn't always fit in our mobile society.

     My school district is beginning a ground breaking summit process this week which promises to listen to and address community concerns and expectations. As we and many other school districts work to transform education into a 21st century model we must focus on the differences in our students and include those differing abilities they bring to the table. Talking about looking at the individual child while thinking of only the ones who fit a neat little pre-determined box of "individuality" is no better than what we have now.

     I've never been fond of the term gifted. Not my students, children, nor I have ever been given anything. But if you're out shopping, what we really want is an abilities-appropriate education.
*Addendum 9/20- new very interesting study: http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2011/09/20/05gifted.h31.html?tkn=SSNF3NjKOeqLBnXZsTgaiy4hGyOTdXytDhAI&cmp=clp-edweek