tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6702344196398061245.post5260389744731618904..comments2024-03-19T22:10:49.383-04:00Comments on Gifted Challenges™: Eliminate gifted education (?)Gail Post, Ph.D.http://www.blogger.com/profile/01482577821092891593noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6702344196398061245.post-37156226238354753282014-05-16T22:43:52.215-04:002014-05-16T22:43:52.215-04:00Erin, Thanks for the information.
GailErin, Thanks for the information.<br />GailGail Post, Ph.D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/01482577821092891593noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6702344196398061245.post-17997241595923437392014-05-16T11:18:10.740-04:002014-05-16T11:18:10.740-04:00I encourage you to read the book, Beyond Gifted Ed...I encourage you to read the book, Beyond Gifted Education to gain a better understanding of what the authors are proposing. In addition, focusing on current performance and needs rather than IQ numbers is in line with recent research studying intellectual abilities on either end of the spectrum.~Erin Morris MillerErin Millernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6702344196398061245.post-78867193578903615132014-05-12T23:08:24.245-04:002014-05-12T23:08:24.245-04:00Anonymous, I appreciate your extremely comprehensi...Anonymous, I appreciate your extremely comprehensive comments in response to my blog post. As you did not identify yourself, I have no way of knowing if you are actually one of the authors of the article; nevertheless, I will assume that you are and respond.<br /> <br />1. While you did not suggest that teachers identify giftedness specifically, you implied that they should determine the needs of gifted students and meet those needs. This would involve assessment. As you state: "This new process is intensely local. Teachers should ask: 'Who is not being challenged in my math classroom today?'... Once these questions are answered, the next step is to determine the educational intervention necessary to ensure that the student learns something new." While this sounds like best practices for any teaching strategy, it certainly implies that it is up to the teacher alone to assess each students' needs. If a teacher is not adept at understanding the needs of the gifted, he or she may miss the pace and depth of learning needed.<br /><br />2. In those states where gifted services are legally required, teachers ARE expected to meet the students' needs. Eliminating a concept just because teachers are unprepared does not solve the problem. The growth model you suggest is wonderful; however, growth for typical learners is different than for those who require a more accelerated and challenging pace. This is not related to previously acquired knowledge; gifted children think differently and need to be challenged differently. <br /><br />3. While there are various definitions of giftedness, most would agree that a 130+ IQ is a baseline. The range of definitions is confusing; however, developing a more standardized definition and training teachers to understand more about the intellectual and social/emotional needs of gifted children would be a sign of progress. Specific academic content is not as relevant to gifted children as creativity, depth, and pace of learning.<br /><br />Again, I appreciate your thoughtful response. My primary disagreement with your assertion is that elimination of the term, whether ii is "gifted" or another label, will result in dismantling what few services these children currently receive. Thanks.<br />GailGail Post, Ph.D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/01482577821092891593noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6702344196398061245.post-23918299919311586872014-05-12T11:41:11.356-04:002014-05-12T11:41:11.356-04:00As one of the authors, I can say that this blog po...As one of the authors, I can say that this blog post represents a complete misrepresentation of what we said in the article. Our position is that the concept of "giftedness" has not helped assure that advanced learners are challenged. Has it helped do this in some cases? Absolutely. But on the whole / across the nation, the majority of "identified" students remain underchallenged and there are also large numbers of students who need more challenge who go unidentified. Nowhere in the piece do we suggest "eliminating gifted education". Instead, we suggest that the same goals of greater student learning, growth, and engagement could be just as effectively met without the concept of gifted. Part of this statement assumes gifted programs or services have goals - an assumption that is by no means safe. <br /><br />Set gifted education back? From what? I am confident that those students who are served in gifted programs do enjoy them very much, but so would most students. Simply having fun in a program or enjoying it does not make for an appropriate outcome since it's something we should want for all students - not just the gifted. <br /><br />The numbered points from above:<br />1. This is a complete straw man argument. Nothing in our piece suggests gifted students should be identified by teachers. In fact, two of the authors have done extensive research on teaching ratings and nominations. <br /><br />2. Nothing about what we are suggesting assumes teachers will do anything. All we are saying is that the concept of "giftedness" fails to assure teachers do anything as far as challenging advanced learners. Even in states where "gifted" is part of special ed, the vast majority of students (including identified students) go underchallenged - including those identified. New evaluation methods focusing on growth might be a more effective incentive than any non-descriptive label. If teachers will now be evaluated on the growth of all students, maybe the label will become less important? Wishful thinking, but maybe. <br /><br />3. This is a straw man argument as nothing in our piece states that diagnostic terms are unnecessary. The problem is that "gifted" is not diagnostic for a classroom teacher. It is so vague in what it means or can mean that it does not tell a teacher how to change his or her instructional methods or curriculum. In some states there are dozens if not hundreds of ways a student can be identified. #3 also makes a factual error in how the vast majority of students are identified (at least in schools). "Learning disabled" carried very detailed and specific criteria. The same cannot be said for gifted. Even if we agree that gifted = 130+ IQ, this is still not a helpful piece of information for a teacher since it doesn't tell him or her what specific academic content the student knows and/or still needs to learn. <br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6702344196398061245.post-22653913879405255182014-04-23T12:59:00.255-04:002014-04-23T12:59:00.255-04:00Christine, Thanks for your comments.
GailChristine, Thanks for your comments.<br />GailGail Post, Ph.D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/01482577821092891593noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6702344196398061245.post-66207849610115172702014-04-23T10:45:48.149-04:002014-04-23T10:45:48.149-04:00Totally agree. Being gifted is itself a special ne...Totally agree. Being gifted is itself a special need as the population's needs are not met in school and the kids often do not thrive in a typical environment.Christine_Merryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13806097843399391651noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6702344196398061245.post-30633103476950015602014-04-18T11:38:21.922-04:002014-04-18T11:38:21.922-04:00Completely agree! Identifying kids for gifted is s...Completely agree! Identifying kids for gifted is so important and should not be gotten rid of.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com