issue focus: dumbing down of giftednessourgifted.com/journals/uog15-2.pdf · “dumbing down” of...

Winter, 2002 Volume 15, Issue 2

Online www.our-gifted.com

P.O. Box 18268, Boulder, Colorado 80308303 444-7020 - 800 494-6178 / Fax 303 545-6505

[email protected]

Dumbing Down of GiftednessIssue Focus:

pen Space Communications

Understanding Our Gifted, Winter 2003 1

Dum

bing

Dow

n of

Gift

edne

ss

ContentsBetween the Lines...2• Publisher’s Perspective

Dorothy Knopper

FeaturesThe False Security of Inclusivity...3

• The field of giftedness has been invaded by those disguised as experts and scholarsJames R. Delisle

All Gifts Are Equal but Some Gifts Are More Equal Than Others...8• We place very different values on academic talent compared to talent in the

“entertainment” fields of music and sportsMiraca U.M. Gross

“Dumbing Down” of Giftedness or “Reaching Down” for Giftedness...13• We must change the philosophies and perspectives we adopt about gifted students,

culturally diverse students, and gifted educationDonna Y. Ford

A Plea for Young Gifted Children...16• Identification of young gifted children may require non-traditional methods

Joan Franklin Smutny

Knots on a Counting Rope...19• Current issues in gifted education

Dorothy Sisk

Bringing the Brain to Class...21• Teaching students enrichment strategies they can use themselves

Carmany Thorp

DepartmentsWhat Readers Have To Say...23

• A Letter Never SentPamela Provenzano

ColumnsSurfing the Net: Are We Dumbing Down Our Daughters?...24

• Girls need to develop the skills used in computer science because those are the skillsthey will need for smart decision-making throughout their lives

Sandra Berger

The Affective Side: Programming Beyond the Label...27• The importance of labels vs. educational methods

Jean Strop

Is Dumbing Down Always a Bad Thing?...29• Provide services because students are eligible––not because they are entitled

Susan Winebrenner

Software Updates: Software as a Lifelong Tool for Learning...30• It is essential for teachers to be comfortable with teaching tools in classrooms

Gregory C. Pattridge

The Bookshelf: Young People with Abilities Bordering on theSupernatural...31

• Books can help young people deal with very complicated issuesSusy Schettler

ParentSpace: The Value of Reading Together...32Jill F. VonGruben

2 www.openspacecomm.com Understanding Our Gifted, Winter 2003

Between the Lines

Publisher’s Perspective

Dorothy KnopperThe field of gifted education is, and always has been, volatile….orrather vulnerable….perhaps both.

I have participated in the struggle for its development and acceptanceas a real and credible educational field––in partnership with count-less parents of gifted children; tireless advocates seeking to obtainfunding, personnel, resources for this special group; and committededucators trying to improve and expand curriculum for advancedstudents who learn faster, need challenge beyond the ordinary, andhave unique social/emotional needs. All of these parents and educa-tors are, in the words on the cover of Understanding Our Gifted:“Dedicated to helping gifted children reach their full potential.”

In the more than 30 years that I have worked for and with gifted kids,I have encountered situations such as the following:• Parents worrying that their children will become “ungifted,”unhappy, dropouts, and even suicidal• Schools and districts taking so long to plan and implement iden-tification procedures that the children grow up and out of the systemwithout being challenged or understood• Children, gifted in one or two areas but not across the board, notqualifying for help in the gifted program • An exodus of highly gifted children to private education andhomeschooling, abandoning public education because of the uncer-tainty of consistent gifted programming

On the positive side, I have also encountered the following:• Dedicated teachers who work to give all children challenge at lev-els appropriate to their needs, and work to develop a positive senseof self for each child • Tireless parents who, rather than complaining, ask, “What can wedo to help our children’s education?”––and then do it….whether itmeans donating time in the library, preparing materials to relieve ateacher’s load, or offering their own talents to share in the classroom• Educators––administrators as well as teachers––who, in spite oflimited time and funding, commit themselves to learning about gift-ed children and their needs through professional reading and atten-dance at conferences and seminars

On the corner of my desk I keep a well-worn copy of Nation at Risk, a1983 report of the National Commission on Excellence in Education.The words jump out at me with an unfortunate ring of truth, eventoday: “Our Nation is at risk…the educational foundations of oursociety are presently being eroded by a rising tide of mediocrity thatthreatens our very future as a Nation and a people.”

Has gifted education been watered down?

The world of gifted education is controversial, and we have encour-aged writers in this “Dumbing Down of Giftedness” issue, to take astand, expressing views on whether or not the meaning of giftednesshas been diluted over the years. Join our discussion. What are yoursuggestions and concerns?

Contact editor Carol Fertig [email protected].


You can always slay imaginary dragons with equally imaginary swords.Eysenck, 2000

For more than two decades, intruders have infiltrated the domain ofgiftedness. Disguised as experts and scholars, they have tried to takethe idea of giftedness and spread it among the many, rather than thefew. They have invented new categories of intelligence and dis-missed the concept of a general intelligence as anachronistic, dis-criminatory, and naive. They have advocated that the strategies usedto teach gifted children be applied to all children. This, by implica-tion, diminishes the need for separate gifted programs. They haveequated giftedness with scholarship and achievement, causing theterm “gifted underachiever” to become oxymoronic. In other words,they have left in a lurch the very children for whom this field wasfounded.

Shame on them—but worse, shame on us—because these “leaders”could not have succeeded without our help. Sad but true, the biggestreason that schoolwide enrichment options have proliferated and“multiple intelligences” have become sacrosanct is that we—every-day gifted advocates—have allowed this to happen.

How did we get here? How did we fall so far from the ideals ofLewis Terman and Leta Hollingworth, our field’s founders? Is thereany way out of the educational backwater into which gifted educa-tion has drifted? Unless we examine these issues honestly, the plightof our nation’s gifted children in our schools will become even worsethan it is today.

A Little Light HistorySir Francis Galton (1869), who lived from 1822 to 1911, had hisinquisitive scientific fingers in many pots: geography, statistics, fin-gerprint classification, and genetics, to name several. A genius him-self, he is the person most responsible for making intelligence a sci-entific and measurable concept. From his 19th-century view, intelli-gence was a general cognitive ability—indeed, the most influentialone in determining a person’s life success.

Incorporating Galton’s work, Alfred Binet (Wolf, 1973), whose lifespan was from 1857 to 1911, was commissioned by the French min-ister of instruction to devise a method for identifying “subnormal”children in the schools of Paris. His result? A test––first developed in1905––that calculated how well a child could complete tasks thatmost children of the same chronological age could do easily. Thus, ifa child of 10 could perform tasks usually completed by a child of 7,the 10-year-old was considered subnormal. But when a child of 7completed tasks ordinarily completed by a child of 10, this child’smental abilities were deemed to be superior. A formula developedby German psychologist William Stern (“Mental Age” divided byChronological Age X 100) came to be called an intelligence quo-tient—IQ—that allowed children to be compared to age-mates rela-tive to their cognitive processing.

The False Security ofInclusivity

James R. Delisle

How did we fall so far from the ideals ofLewis Terman and Leta Hollingworth?

Jim Delisle is professor of education atKent State University and part-time

teacher of gifted children in grades 6-8 inTwinsburg, Ohio. He is an author of

When Gifted Kids Don’t Have All TheAnswers and The Survival Guide for

Teachers of Gifted Children.


Lewis Terman brought these findings to America,resulting in the development of the Stanford-BinetIntelligence Test conducting what is, to date, themost expansive longitudinal study of giftednessever undertaken—Genetic Studies of Genius. Morethan 1,500 children whose IQs averaged 151 wereexamined for decades. A subgroup––those withIQs above 170 (77 individuals)––were examined tosee if they were performing at the “genius” levelsthat were indicated by their IQs. Terman conclud-ed that even with their plethora of patents, books,plays, essays, and scientific papers, no true geniusemerged from this select group of high IQ individ-uals. He reached this conclusion because none hadreceived a Nobel Prize by age 40.

Joseph Renzulli became intrigued with Terman’slater findings in devising his own view of “giftedbehavior” in 1978. Renzulli concluded that thetraits of above average abilities, creativity, and taskcommitment had to coalesce in order to achieveprominence. He used Terman’s own research tobolster his views. From this stance, Renzulli pro-posed that one need not be in the top 1 percent ofthe IQ scale to be gifted—in fact, in Renzulli’sview, IQ by itself mattered little. In the interveningyears, Renzulli came to suggest that between 15-25percent of a given population were capable of gift-ed behaviors, spawning schoolwide enrichmentprograms that served a wide array of students,often with IQs as low as 115 (Renzulli & Reis,1985).

When Howard Gardner came along, he dismissedthe concept of general intelligence entirely andinvented the Multiple Intelligences model (1983),advocating that there are at least eight separateand independent intellects that can be measured.A high IQ mattered little in Gardner’s view, as itpredicts little in life other than how well you willdo on another IQ test.

Why all this history? Because without an under-standing of the fundamentals of where we havebeen in the realm of intelligence and giftedness, itis difficult to comprehend fully the absurdity oftoday’s errant views of these concepts. Let meexplain through….

A Little DissectionIn taking a closer look at Renzulli’s conclusions, itis obvious that he picked and chose those elementsof Terman’s work that bolstered his own nascentideas of what gifted behavior looks like. Thus,even though Terman suggested that many person-ality characteristics differentiated between themost and least successful of his high IQ subjects,Renzulli chose only two to incorporate into hisview of giftedness: task commitment and creativ-ity. However, Terman had also mentioned theimportance of positive self-concept, self-confi-

dence, common sense, sociability, and even physi-cal attractiveness in the makeup of a successfulgifted person. Why no mention of these inRenzulli’s definition? Their omission is curiousand remains unexplained. Further, even the lowestlevel of IQ tested among Terman’s subjects was135, yet Renzulli contends that those without suchsuperior IQs often perform gifted behaviors.Well….sorry, you can’t have it both ways. Youcan’t say that slightly above average IQs (115-130)are the breeding grounds of giftedness by usingresearch done on people with IQs of 135-200 to bol-ster your claims!

In considering Gardner’s view of multiple ways tobe intelligent, there are two elements that manyindividuals consider important in digesting a newtheory: convenience and simplicity. Unfortunately,these elements alone do little to bolster Gardner’sdubious claims of the existence of at least eightseparate, non-overlapping intelligences. HansEysenck, a professor of psychology at MaudsleyHospital in England and the author of more than70 books, faults Gardner for not even attemptingto correlate his eight intelligences, concluding thatGardner “never provides any empirical evidencefor his esoteric and quite unrealistic notions. Nowonder he gained high academic acclaim and astrongly partisan following—you only have toattack the IQ to become famous and popular, how-ever nonsensical the attack, and however weak thealleged evidence for your own systems!… You canalways slay imaginary dragons with equally imag-inary swords” (2000, p.109).

What we are left with, then, with these two viewsof giftedness and intelligence, is more opinionthan truth––more conjecture than evidence. “Newand improved,” giftedness is now doled out dem-ocratically to anyone who fits Renzulli’s orGardner’s opinions of what giftedness “lookslike,” even if the bases for their theories are, at best,suspect.

The Negative Effects of Theory on Practice It may have been inevitable that the advent ofthese more inclusive views of giftedness wouldhave a direct effect on gifted programs nationwide.Under Renzulli’s Revolving Door plan (1982), andits subsequent Schoolwide Enrichment (1985) deriv-atives, any child in the top 20 percent (or more) ofa school population is seen as potentially capableof gifted behaviors. This group—and, indeed,sometimes every student in a school—would beoffered all types of enrichment and exposure expe-riences. For the ones who shout, “Me! Me! I wantto learn more!” there would be a chance to workon a project that proved just how smart theywere—in Renzulli’s parlance, a “Type III project.”Once the project was completed, it became some-one else’s turn to act gifted, and this first enthusi-astic child would return to the “talent pool” andwait his or her turn before diving in again to do

False continued


False continued

some gifted behaving.

This utilitarian view of giftedness allowed a larg-er percentage of children to receive services fromthe gifted specialist, relieving many schooladministrators and making many more parentshappy and proud that they now had gifted chil-dren. However, when incorporating this moreinclusive model of gifted programming, the num-ber of gifted specialists in a school seldomincreased, due primarily to the high cost of per-sonnel. The result? The intensity of services thathad previously been offered to children in theschool’s top 5 percent decreased dramatically(How could it not?). The net for catching giftedchildren may have been cast wider but––underthis plan––into more shallow waters.

Certainly, there are benefits to a system that offersenrichment to many children and that allows awide variety of students to pursue their passionsthrough projects. However, it is hardly a modelthat serves the needs of children who are gifted inthe way that Terman, Hollingworth, and Eysencksaw them. Indeed, questions arise about themany gaps in Renzulli’s propositions––questionslike the following:• Aren’t there levels of giftedness just as thereare levels of mental retardation? And, if so,shouldn’t we provide different types of targetedservices to children who are at the more extremeends of the intellectual spectrum? Just imagine ifchildren with IQs of 35 were receiving the sameprogram offerings as children with IQs of 70. Theoutcry of unacceptability would be universal andappropriate. The same logic applies for childrenwith IQs of 115 and those with IQs of 145, yetwhere is the outcry?• Renzulli’s research on gifted behaviors wasdone by analyzing the lives of eminent adults, yethis program model is applied to children. Isn’tthere a possibility that some eminent adults pro-duced very little in childhood? What givesRenzulli (or anyone) the right to say that giftedchildren’s needs are best met in a program thatsees giftedness as a behavior instead of as a clus-ter of inherent traits? You can’t claim certaintywithout proof. Which leads to….• Where are the comparative studies that showwhich is more effective: a “gifted behavior”approach to programming or a more traditionalone where children are selected on the basis oftheir intellectual traits? Which children are more“successful” as adults? Which are happier?Which are more professionally and personallyfulfilled? Does either group attribute their currentstatus, in part, to their gifted program? Certainly,there are enough children who have gonethrough both types of programs that some com-parisons can be made as to the relative strengths

of each option. • Some highly capable children dislike schoolbecause of its routine and tedium. Some evenbecome discipline problems or end up failing aca-demically. How are these children served, intellec-tually and emotionally, in an enrichment programbased on production? Is such a child served at allif she is not yet ready to undertake a project? If so,how? If not, at what cost to the child?• Many early and current advocates believe thatgifted children have particular social and emotion-al needs that are best addressed in a setting withothers who may share these needs. Further, manychildren who have participated in gifted programsremark on the benefits of finally locating an intel-lectual peer group as one of the program’s mostimportant and lasting impacts. How can theseissues be addressed under a schoolwide enrich-ment program based primarily on performanceand production?

Since the adoption of schoolwide enrichmentoptions, there has been a broadening of servicesto all children and a paucity of services for iden-tified gifted children. Rather than serving as abeneficial enhancement of an extant gifted pro-gram, schoolwide enrichment has been used as areason (excuse?) to replace the separate provisionspreviously offered to a school’s top 5 percent of itsstudents. Is the trade-off worth the cost? As advo-cates of gifted children, whether they produceproject after project or never complete a singlething they start, it is a question that we can nolonger ignore.

Even more insidious than the schoolwide enrich-ment provision is what has happened as a result ofthe Multiple Intelligences movement. Since(according to Gardner) children are intelligent inmany different ways—mathematically, verbally,musically, kinesthetically—teachers should allowchildren to show their abilities through a variety ofavenues—writing, song, dance, etc. In doing so,children are tapping into their unique intelligence,allowing almost everyone to excel in some way.

A couple of observations apply here. First, eversince schools began, good teachers have takenadvantage of their students’ individual strengthsby allowing them to show what they have learnedvia multiple ways. But, until Gardner’s foray intoschools, most teachers simply saw these as learn-ing style preferences focusing on how you learnbest. These were not seen as separate intelligences;rather, they were noted for what they were—andare: vehicles for sharing whatever abilities one has.

A second observation is that Gardner’s work hasbeen used as a legitimate-sounding reason forschool administrators and boards of education todismiss gifted programs as superfluous and,therefore, unnecessary. “After all,” is the retort,“we do Multiple Intelligences education in our


school so that every child is getting served appro-priately.” The end result, similar to what has hap-pened with schoolwide enrichment provisions, is adiminishing of services for children who are giftedin the archaic, 19th-century, all encompassing kindof way. These children, the ones who were thebasis of our field’s founding, have never beenmore underserved.

I wish I could state that I believe in the truth ofwhat Renzulli and Gardner have to say. For sure,my professional life would be easier if I agreedwith the loud and growing chorus of educatorswho espouse these views about serving gifted chil-dren.

But I don’t agree. I can’t agree. And as much as Inever entered this field to be a thorn in the side ofthe prevailing orthodoxy, that’s exactly where Ifind myself.

How much easier it would be if I believed thatevery child was gifted in some way! Yet I knowthis is not true, just as every child is not a star ath-lete, just as every child is not “retarded in someway,” just as every child is not blond, brown-eyed,or five feet tall. Differences exist among people,both obvious and subtle, and any attempt to erasethese distinctions is not a sign of our society’s sen-sitivity and insight, but rather, its shallowness andnaiveté. Endorsing artificial equality is more harm-ful than admitting natural differences. The greatestgood is never served by pretending a lie is thetruth.

A Few Steps BackOf course, it is easy to criticize but much more dif-ficult to offer solutions and alternatives. In anattempt to give some concrete suggestions forimproved services to gifted children, I defer to oneof my forebears, Leta Hollingworth, for guidance.Hollingworth learned most of what she knewabout gifted children by working with them in theNew York City Schools in the 1930s. Arguably,Hollingworth is best known for her book, Childrenabove 180 IQ: Stanford-Binet (1942). Still, much ofher work in the classroom setting was done withgifted children whose IQs were far lower than180+, though still superior.

First and foremost, Hollingworth saw the needs ofgifted children as encompassing the social andemotional realms, including such issues as theneed to• learn about giftedness and how it impacts every-day life situations• learn coping strategies for school lessons andexperiences that are intellectually numbing• get assistance in coping with the frustration ofhaving few age-mates who share your interests

and abilities • get guidance in addressing life’s philosophicalquestions at an age when most adults are notready for you to ask them

Her list is more expansive than this, yet even inthis abbreviated format one thing is obvious: Thereis no way the above concerns can be adequatelyaddressed in a schoolwide enrichment programwhere children are only gifted by the productsthey display. Instead, here is my blueprint for tak-ing a few steps back in order to ensure that giftedchildren are served appropriately in our schools.1. Identify children who are in the top 5 percentof a school population, as determined by a validintellectual assessment, and get them togetherfor a minimum of one full day per week. Evenchildren of different grades and ages benefit whenthey are brought together with other children of“like minds.” It is in a setting like this that the con-cerns proposed by Hollingworth can be addressedin open and valid ways.2. Differentiate the level and types of educa-tional services received by children, dependingon the extent of their measured abilities. Thinkfootball here: every high school offers varsity, jun-ior varsity, and intramural squads on the gridiron.Depending on ability, athletes receive different lev-els and intensities of service (coaching) and theyare encouraged to compete with others of like abil-ity. One school’s varsity team never plays anotherschool’s intramural athletes head-to-head, becauseit is understood that such a match-up would beunfair and inappropriate. This is equally true inintellectual gamesmanship: the same activity thatis challenging for an “intramural” gifted child isinsufficient for a “varsity” gifted child.3. Offer educational services to gifted childrenthat capitalize on their innate abilities with littleregard to product development. Somewherealong the way it has been forgotten that the accu-mulation of knowledge or insight is, in itself, avalid product. Discussing world politics does nothave to result in a mock peace treaty in order toprove successful. Reading the poetry of SylviaPlath to better understand the roots of lonelinessmay be beneficial even if the only visible productis a student’s private diary. Children need to knowthat production is a limited vision of success, andthat it applies more to adults than to them. As ayoung person, the absorbing of knowledge and

False continued

The net for catching giftedchildren may have been castwider but–under this plan–intomore shallow waters.

“”


insight is one of their tasks. Giving it back cancome later.4. Identify giftedness based on potential, notproduction. The term underachievement is bothoverused and ill defined. What is common,though, is for students who are not performing upto a particular level of adequacy to be dismissedfrom a gifted program until they “shape up.” Thisshortsighted solution benefits no one, and it tellsthe gifted child that he is appreciated only condi-tionally. A preferable alternative is to keep thesechildren involved in a gifted program—especiallyif it is obvious, through observation, that they arebenefiting from it—and seek a solution to theiracademic dilemmas through discussion, counsel-ing, or other means that address the situationaland inner reasons for the child’s low performance.

ConclusionSisyphus was given the daunting task of pushinghis boulder up a steep, steep hill. Again and againit fell; again and again he pushed it back up. Somewould call him stubborn or slow, his efforts point-less. Others might question why he didn’t just takeas truth the fact that he would never succeed andplace his efforts elsewhere, realigning his priori-ties.

Personally, I prefer to call him dedicated––dedicat-ed to a purpose that he alone understood fully.

For advocates of gifted children, these past twodecades must have felt like they were sharingSisyphus’ lot. Try as they might to get gifted chil-dren recognized for who they are as people ratherthan what they can do as “production assistants,”their efforts have been stifled, their boulders rolledback upon them. Perhaps now is the time to tryagain—together, as advocates—to combine ourefforts to regain for gifted children the place theyrightly deserve in our society, our schools, and ourhearts. Indeed, considering the sad state of ourgifted programs nationwide due to schoolwideenrichment options and the mantra of MultipleIntelligences, there is no other alternative than totry, together, to roll that boulder to the top of thehill, and to roll it back down the other side. ❖

ReferencesEysenck. H. (2000). Intelligence: A New Look. New

Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Press.Galton, F. (1869). Hereditary Genius: An Inquiry into Its Laws

and Consequences. London: Macmillan.Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of Mind: the Theory of Multiple

Intelligences. New York; Basic Books.Hollingworth, L.S. (1922). Provisions for Intellectually

Superior Children. In M.V. O’Shea (Ed.) The Child: His Nature and Needs. (pp. 10-32) New York: Arno Press.

False continued Hollngworth, L.S. (1942). Children Above 180 I.Q. Stanford-Binet. New York: World Book.

Renzulli, J.S. (1978). What Makes Giftedness: Reexamining a Definition. Phi Delta Kappan, 60, 180-184.

Renzulli, J.S. & Reis, S.M. (1985). The Schoolwide Enrichment Model. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.

Renzulli, J.S., Reis, S.M., & Smith, L.H. (1982). The Revolving Door Identification Model. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.

Terman, L.M. & Oden, M. H. (1959). Genetic Studies of Genius, Volume IV: The Gifted Child Grows Up. CA: Stanford University Press.

Wolf, T. (1973). Alfred Binet. University of Chicago Press.

The Wisdom of Leta Hollingworth––1922

When we hear repeatedly from various peoplethat a given child is ‘old for his age,’ ‘so reliable,’‘very old fashioned,’ ‘quick to see a joke,’ ‘youngestin his class,’ or that he has ‘an old head on youngshoulders’ or ‘such a long memory,’ we usually findhim to be highly intelligent, by test.

A child of 130 IQ is a very bright member of hisgroup in kindergarten; a rather bright member ofhis group in high school; and but an averagemember of his group in a first-rate college. Hisintellectual quality does not change, but his groupof competitors becomes more and more highlyselected, creating the illusion of retrogression onhis part.

Should all children who test very high, as regardsintellect, be educated for science, for the profes-sions, and for the direction of industry? Shouldsociety induce some of them to join the manualtrades, as hand workers? Should unskilled laborbe drained by educational policy more thoroughlythan it now is drained by competition, of all first-rate intelligence? These are disturbing questions ofconsequence, which affect the educator.

Schools cannot equalize children; schools can onlyequalize opportunity. It may be well thought to behighly undemocratic to provide full opportunityfor the exercise of their capabilities to some, whileto others the same offering means only partialexercise of their powers. It is hard for a psycholo-gist to define democracy, but perhaps one accept-able definition might be that it is a condition ofaffairs, in which every human being has opportu-nity to live and work in accordance with inborncapacity for achievement.


We don’t dumb down the concept of giftedness. We don’t require gift-ed students to conceal or moderate their achievements. Both in theUnited States and in my country, Australia, we praise, encourage,and foster giftedness and spend enormous sums of money promot-ing it.

Of course, we are selective.

Ten years ago, in Exceptionally Gifted Children (Gross, 1993), I report-ed on the first decade of a longitudinal study I am conducting of 60exceptionally and profoundly gifted Australian children and adoles-cents. I wrote of my concern about the very different values whichAustralian society (and American society, for that matter!) places onacademic talent compared to talent in the “entertainment” fields ofmusic and sports. I illustrated this through the story of “Sandie,” aremarkably gifted young woman who was then in elementaryschool.

By the time she reached her 11th birthday, Sandie had developed asan extremely talented and acclaimed young pianist. Although shehad been studying for only three years, she had already passed thegrade 8 exams, and her teachers had informed her parents that shewas one of the most gifted students they had ever taught. For thepast year the prestigious private school that she attended had fea-tured her in the senior school concerts, performing with students sixand seven years older. She was the first elementary school student tobe “honored” in this way.

Another of Sandie’s talents was swimming. She was a member ofcompetitive swimming squads both within her school and with acommunity sports association. She was, indeed, exceptionally tal-ented, and the school permitted her to swim in teams comprised ofstudents some years older. At age 10, she was invited to train for herstate swimming squad, but declined as it would have interfered withher music and her other great love—short story writing.

In both music and athletics, Sandie’s remarkable talents were recog-nized and fostered. Society, and her school, permitted her to feel ajustifiable pride in her successes. Perhaps this was because theschool and her swimming squad benefited directly from her visibil-ity. To put it bluntly, Sandie made them look good! In addition, it issocially acceptable in Australia to excel in sports and music.

However, Sandie has a third area of talent which neither society norher school were willing to acknowledge. She is exceptionally giftedintellectually with an IQ of more than 160. Fewer than one child in10,000 scores at this level. Her remarkable intellectual capacity isaccompanied by outstanding mathematical and verbal abilities. Atage 11, her reading comprehension was already at the 12th-gradelevel. Yet Sandie’s school, rather than fostering her intellectual abili-

Do we foster the gifts that entertain us in the shortterm while restraining and “dumbing down”

the others?

All Gifts Are Equal butSome Gifts Are More

Equal Than Others*

Miraca U.M. Gross

Miraca U.M. Gross is Professor ofGifted Education and Director of the

Gifted Education Research, Resource andInformation Centre (GERRIC) at the

University of New South Wales inSydney, Australia.

* With apologies to George Orwell, a gifted man who foresaw the dangers ofpolitically mediated social values....


ties as they developed her musical and athletic tal-ents, insisted that Sandie undertake the same mathand language curriculum as the other 11 year olds.

The following passage forms part of a “Gothicromance” which Sandie wrote when she was 11years old. The language, punctuation, and spellingare exactly as Sandie wrote them.

Just before this scene, the hero, Jonus, proposedmarriage to the heroine, Adeline, who is manyyears older than he is.

‘No, child. I couldn’t marry you. You know better thanthat.’

Jonus stared into her face, feeling as if he had had a blowacross the head with a metal bar.

‘Child?’ he murmured.

He pulled himself together and said, ‘Then I must goaway. Forever.’

Adeline watched as he hung his head and trudged backto his home, his whole body limp and exhausted with allthe emotional strength draining out like water. Shesighed slowly and went into her house.

Jonus sat in his green kingdom of leaves and grass. Heglanced at his body. It was thin and bony from malnu-trition and too much exercise. These last few days hehad tried to empty his head of all the memories of hishome town. He concentrated on the woodpecker whichwas pecking at its tree and the squirrel which was col-lecting nuts for the winter.

The atmosphere engendered in this vignette, andthe restraint maintained in the two characters’expressions of emotion, are quite remarkable,given that the writer is a child in elementaryschool.

Of the 60 young people in my study, 16 are nowattending universities or have already graduated;the others are younger. They live in cities, towns,and country centers throughout Australia. Theirnames, including Sandie’s, have been changed toprotect the identities of members of the group. Theyoung people themselves have chosen their pseu-donyms.

Sadly, the case of Sandie is not an isolated instance.More than 75 percent of the children and adoles-cents in my study learn a musical instrument, andmore than half of them learn two instruments.None of them, including Sandie, displays a musi-cal talent that is at as high a level as their academ-ic potential; nevertheless more than half of themare described, by their instrumental or vocal teach-

Gifts continued ers, as having unusually high levels of musicalaptitude.

Hadley began to learn the recorder at age 8, butafter a few weeks his teacher promoted him to agroup of 10-year-olds, who had all been studyingfor two years. His teacher noted that he masteredthe work with ease. Later he studied flute and clar-inet and played first clarinet in the senior orchestraof his secondary school, despite being three yearsyounger than most of the other players. At age 15,he served as chair of the organizing committee,which managed the orchestra’s interstate tour.

By age 6, Roshni astonished her piano teacher withher musicality, her remarkable memory, and thespeed with which she mastered new work. At 8years old, Alice’s choir teacher told her parentsthat she had an exceptional ear for music and out-standing potential as a singer. Both girls were pro-moted to learn and perform with students severalyears older.

Like Sandie, many of these exceptionally giftedchildren are recognized by their schools for theirmusical talents. At the same time, their exception-al academic abilities, which are of an even higherorder, are quietly ignored.

Richard is a talented flautist. He also displaysunusual ability as a composer. At the age of 10 hehad one of his flute compositions used as a testpiece in a master class for adult musicians at theConservatorium of Music in his state. His musicalaptitude has been identified and fostered; he hasbeen permitted to progress, both in performanceand composition, well beyond the levels normallyattained by a student of his age.

He is also a brilliant chess player and, by age 11,was playing on his school’s most senior, and mostelite, chess team. He competed with and againstfirst class chess players (many of whom are sever-al years older) from schools across Australia. At notime was it suggested that the program of radicalacceleration designed by the school for him inchess would damage him intellectually or socially.Indeed, the school took great pride in his achieve-ments.

Richard’s other major talent is math. His earlymath development was quite phenomenal. At theage of 4, he amazed a professor of mathematics ata major university by doing arithmetic mentally inbinary, octal, and hexadecimal. However, the atti-tude of Richard’s school towards his math achieve-ment was dramatically different from their atti-tude towards his abilities in music and chess.

At the age of 12 years, 6 months, Richard took theScholastic Aptitude Test-Mathematics (SAT-M),which is normed on American high school seniors.The SAT was used as an above-level test because


Richard scored at the ceiling of every previousmath assessment he had been given. Richardgained a phenomenal 780 marks out of a possible800. Fewer than 3 in 1000 American high schoolgraduates could hope to make such a score. Yet,regardless of his SAT results, which were sharedwith his teachers, he was required to work lock-step on 7th-grade math with the other 7th-gradestudents.

Richard’s school stated that it did not believe inaccelerating students beyond their grade level;acceleration, they claimed, could result in socialand emotional damage.

Anastasia, by age 8, had emerged as an excellentpianist and a talented singer. As well as fosteringher musical talents within the school setting, herschool arranged for Anastasia to audition for aprestigious girls’ choir, an audition that she under-took with conspicuous success.

Yet Anastasia’s phenomenal language abilitieswere largely ignored. Like the considerable major-ity of the children in my study, Anastasia learnedto read long before she went to school. Indeed, shewas reading short books at the age of 3, and by thetime she entered school she had the reading abili-ties of a 4th-grade student. At age 7, her readingaccuracy and reading comprehension were that ofa 12-year-old, and she was reading, with greatenjoyment, books such as Richard Adams’Watership Down. By age 8, she was reading LesMiserables. Having seen the musical, she wanted toread the book! The problem is—Anastasia had toread these books at home. At school, she wasrequired to read the same books as her 8-year-oldclassmates. Not surprisingly, having so little incommon with the other children, she had little totalk to them about. She had read the books theyliked years before. The books she liked were utter-ly incomprehensible to them. Anastasia’s teacherfrowningly told her parents that she was unsocia-ble.

My American colleagues who have a special con-cern for highly gifted students report similar find-ings from their own studies. Why, in both ourcountries, do we “dumb down” the talents of aca-demically gifted students through developmental-ly inappropriate curriculum and developmentallyinappropriate grade placement, while we enthusi-astically foster high potential in athletics and theperforming arts?

To paraphrase the famous quote from AnimalFarm: in Australia and the United States “all giftsare equal but some gifts are more equal than oth-ers.” We foster that which we value or have beentaught to value.

Inequality of Value Leads to Inequality ofResponseMore than 2000 years ago, Plato wrote: “What isvalued in a country is cultivated there.”

Why do we value different gifts so differently? Isuspect that an important element is the degree towhich we see the gifts of others to be of immediatepractical advantage, or benefit, to ourselves.

It is easy for a school, a community, or a nation tojustify significant expenditures on finding and fos-tering athletic potential. Most of us, even if we donot root passionately for one team or the other,take an aesthetic pleasure from watching teamsports played well. As a community member, Itherefore have nothing to lose and a great deal togain by encouraging or even sponsoring athletictalent.

Similarly, when I attend a concert, listen to a CD,or simply hear a friend play or sing, my pleasure isintensified when the performance is of high quali-ty. I have therefore nothing to lose and a very greatdeal to gain by encouraging or even sponsoringmusical talent.

But what immediate or long-term benefit accruesto me from finding that an 8 year old hears themusic of math in a way that I have never heard it,or that a 10 year old is so entranced by StevenHawking’s A Brief History of Time that he takes it tobed each night? If we cannot understand and enjoythe concepts these children are exploring, theirabilities will seem of little immediate advantage tous, and many of us will be hard pressed to identi-fy a concrete, practical, long-term benefit.

Americans may wish to consider to what degreethis also applies to them ....

In both Australia and the United States, many keystrategies, which educational and psychologicalresearch have found to be extremely successful infostering academic talent, are used in music andsports. These same strategies are often withheldfrom students whose gifts lie in academic areas.

Acceleration—Talented young musicians and ath-letes are permitted to progress at their own pace,training and performing with older students whenthis is appropriate. The works that talented youngmusicians prepare and perform are chosen on thebasis of the performers’ maturity and readiness,rather than their chronological age.

Ability grouping—Sports teams and musicensembles are generally formed on the basis ofhomogeneity of ability and/or achievement. Ingeneral, the higher the level of expertise, thegreater the homogeneity of the group that isformed in response.

Gifts continued


Mentorships—Highly talented young athletes areoften taken under the wing of an older player whowill coach them on strategy and on psychologicalissues within the sport. Talented young musiciansmay have the opportunity to take master classes.

Sustained and rigorous practice—It is acceptedthat a structured and rigorous regime of practice isessential if the gifted young musician or athlete isto develop his talent.

Pride in achievement—Talented musicians andathletes are encouraged to feel pride in their giftsand strive to develop them.

Opportunity for comparison—Sports teams arematched with each other on the basis of ability andachievement, allowing healthy competition andsocial comparison. Similarly, music festivals allowtalented young musicians and singers to matchthemselves against others of similar ability.Festinger (1954) showed that a realistic evaluationof our achievements is only possible when we aregiven the opportunity to compare our perform-ance against that of other people whose abilitiesare similar to ours.

The Dilemma of the Gifted UnderachieverSince the early 1970s, educators have been con-cerned by the level of underachievement in aca-demically gifted students (Rimm, 1997; Reis &McCoach, 2000). Alarmingly, the more highly gift-ed the student, the more serious his or her level ofunderachievement is likely to be (Gross, 1993).

It is not a matter of laziness. The majority of thesegifted young people would happily work at theirtrue level, if only they were permitted. Richardloathed having to repeat in 7th grade the math hehad taught himself when he was in 3rd grade.Anastasia would have given anything to find agroup of friends at school with whom she coulddiscuss her enjoyment of the verbal humor and theanimal characterizations in Watership Down.

Sometimes the gifted student deliberately decidesto underachieve in an attempt to gain peer accept-ance. Because of the Australian tendency to “cutdown the tall poppies,” this problem is particular-ly acute. If students choose to soar academically,they may find themselves ostracized by their class-mates. Alternatively, the gifted student may decidethat having friends is more important than suc-ceeding academically, and she may deliberatelyconceal her talents and work at the level of themajority of the class, for the sake of acceptance byher peers (Gross, 1989).

The majority of the exceptionally gifted youngpeople in my longitudinal study admit that for

much of their schooling they deliberately under-played their academic talents in the classroom,fearing that they would be rejected by their class-mates if they displayed the full extent of their abil-ities. The children’s parents are aware of theirunderachievement and are deeply concerned. “Shedeliberately holds herself back to fit in with theothers,” said Sandie’s mother. “Many times shedoes not want to learn new concepts at home. Forexample, although she is interested in algebra shedoes not want me to teach it to her, as she knowsshe will be bored stiff at school when the rest of theclass is taught the subject.”

Why Hold Back the Academically Talented?The education of gifted children in our two coun-tries is hampered by the predominance of socialmyths and misconceptions, many of which centeron the harm which will supposedly arise if achild’s academic talents are recognized and fos-tered.

Let us return to the strategies we looked at earlier,which are used to foster the talents of musicallygifted students, and examine the reasons that edu-cators generally give for not employing thesestrategies with students who are academically gift-ed. Keep in mind, as we do this, that these reasonsare not supported by empirical research and, ingeneral, are strongly contradicted by it.

Acceleration—Few teachers would express con-cern that these students might be exposed to socialor emotional damage from working with olderstudents at a level so far beyond that normallyattained by age-peers. However, the staff of thestudents’ schools frequently vetoes proposals thata 3rd-grade student should go to the 4th-gradeclassroom for English or that a 7th-grade studentshould do math with 9th graders, on the groundsthat accelerating the student will lead to social oremotional distress in later years.

Ability grouping—It is accepted that for optimaldevelopment of their talents, highly able youngmusicians need the opportunity to work with abili-ty peers. However, classroom teachers regularlyargue that withdrawing academically gifted stu-

Gifts continued

Talented young musiciansand athletes are permitted

to progress at their own pace,training and performing witholder students when thisis appropriate.

“

”


dents from the regular classroom disrupts theclass, makes the gifted students conceited, dam-ages the self-esteem of less able students, andremoves from the class the students whom theteacher relies on to help the less able (Benbow,1998). It is noteworthy that these arguments focusnot on the needs of the gifted student but on theperceived needs of his or her classmates.

Mentorships—It is rare for an academically giftedelementary or secondary school student to havestructured access to an adult who has high levelexpertise in his or her field of talent.

Sustained and rigorous practice—Many teacherswill refuse to give an academically gifted childmore challenging work to do at home for fear thathe will be “pushed too hard.” Indeed, it is oftenassumed that “the pressure” to excel is comingfrom home, even when the child is visibly passion-ate about her field of talent.

Pride in achievement—As discussed earlier, manyteachers are reluctant to acknowledge outstandingacademic talent for fear of fostering conceit or evenarrogance. The need to receive validation of one’sachievements is seldom acknowledged.

Opportunity for comparison—It is not unusualfor schools to choose not to develop programs foracademically gifted students on the grounds thatthis might encourage a “competitive” spirit in thestudent body.

My comments are not intended to be cynical. I wasa classroom teacher and school administrator formore than 20 years, and I have the deepest respectfor the profession of teaching. I am aware that themajority of teachers who put forward the argu-ments I have noted above are utterly sincere intheir beliefs and see no contradiction in their atti-tudes. The majority of teachers have received vir-tually no pre-service or inservice training on howto recognize or respond to highly able students intheir classes. In the absence of factual information,they turn to the prevailing social myths, not recog-nizing them for what they are.

The belief that academic acceleration will causesocial or emotional harm is extremely pervasive inboth our countries; yet 50 years of empiricalresearch have found no record of social or emo-tional damage resulting from well-run accelerationprograms where the child’s emotional and socialreadiness are taken into consideration, as well ashis or her intellectual talent (Daurio, 1979; Kulik &Kulik, 1984; Southern, Jones & Stanley, 1993; Gross,1992, 1993, 1998; Cronbach, 1996). By contrast,research suggests that we should be more con-cerned for the maladaptive effects of years of bore-

dom, under stimulation, and intellectual frustra-tion on academically gifted students trapped in alockstep curriculum.

If all gifts were truly equal, equal time and effortwould be devoted to identifying and fosteringthem. We would commit equal funds to the devel-opment of talent in academic subjects as we do tothe development of talent in athletics and the per-forming arts. Young people talented in math, sci-ence, or English would receive an individuallydesigned and paced, developmentally appropri-ate, curriculum.

But sadly, all gifts are not viewed as equal, andsome gifts are indeed “more equal than others.” Aslong as this remains so, we will foster the gifts thatentertain us in the short term while restraining and“dumbing down” the others. ❖

References

Benbow, C.P. (1998). Grouping Intellectually Advanced Students for Instruction. In J. Van Tassel-Baska (Ed.) Excellence in Educating Gifted and Talented Learners (pp. 261-278). Denver: Love.

Cronbach, L. (1996). Acceleration Among the Terman Males:Correlates in Midlife and After. In C.P. Benbow & D. Lubinski (Eds.) Intellectual Talent: Psychometric and SocialIssues (pp. 179-191). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Daurio, S.P. (1979). Educational Enrichment versus Acceleration: A Review of the Literature. In W.C. George, S.J. Cohn & J.C. Stanley (Eds.), Educating the Gifted: Acceleration and Enrichment (pp. 13-63). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Festinger, L. (1954). A Theory of Social Comparison Process.Human Relations, 7, 117-140.

Gross, M.U.M. (1989). The Pursuit of Excellence or the Search for Intimacy? The Forced-choice Dilemma of Gifted Youth. Roeper Review, 11(4), 189-194.

Gross, M.U.M. (1992). The Use of Radical Acceleration in Cases of Extreme Intellectual Precocity. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36(2), 90-98.

Gross, M.U.M. (1993) Exceptionally Gifted Children, London:Routledge.

Gross, M.U.M. (1998). “Fishing” for the Facts: A Response toMarsh and Craven, 1998. Australasian Journal of Gifted Education, 7(1), 16-28.

Kulik, J.A. & Kulik, C.C. (1984). Effects of Accelerated Instruction on Students. Review of Educational Research, 54, 409-425.

Reis, S.M. & McCoach, D.B. (2000). The Underachievementof Gifted Students: What Do We Know and Where Do We Go? Gifted Child Quarterly, 44(3), 152-170.

Rimm, S.B. (1997). Underachievement Syndrome: A NationalEpidemic. In N. Colangelo & G.A. Davis (Eds.) Handbookof Gifted Education (pp. 414-434). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Southern, W.T., Jones, E.D., & Stanley, J.C. (1993). Acceleration and Enrichment: The Context and Development of Program Options. In K. Heller, F. Monks, & A.H. Passow (Eds.) International Handbook forResearch and Development on Giftedness and Talent. Oxford: Pergamon.

Gifts continued


“Dumbing Down”of Giftedness or

“Reaching Down”for Giftedness

Donna Y. Ford

When is it time to stop doing “business asusual” in the way we treat gifted education?

As a doctoral student in educational psychology, I remember one ofmy professors sharing the following statement: “In gifted education,there are many questions, but no easy answers.” As I pursued mydegree, immersed myself in readings, and consulted in schools andwith the Office for Civil Rights, I found myself thinking often of thisstatement. Today, over 10 years later, it still comes frequently tomind. Our field is wrestling with many issues as we endeavor tomeet the needs of students with varying needs, varying types of gift-edness, and varying levels of giftedness: How do we define gifted-ness? How many students should be identified as gifted? How dowe effectively assess and serve gifted students, highly gifted stu-dents, underachieving students, and gifted minority students? Dowe have to “sacrifice” excellence for equity in assessment and serv-ices? Do we have to “water down” or “dumb down” assessment andservices to increase racial and economic diversity in gifted pro-grams? These are questions that, in some ways, keep our field frommoving ahead and from more strongly advocating for culturally andeconomically diverse students.

There are many issues facing our field of gifted education, particu-larly as they relate to racially diverse students (Ford et al., 2002).Gifted minority students often lie at the center of the debates regard-ing gifted education assessment, placement, and services—sur-rounding testing, “dumbing down,” “watering down,” and “excel-lence versus equity.” Attitudes appear to lie at the heart of thisdebate. In working with educators who are resistant to change, Ihave repeatedly heard the following:• “If we make allowances for this group, some people will beupset.” (This is often an example of preserving the status quo and afear of white flight. Substantive changes, therefore, are not made.Band-Aids are applied to gaping wounds.)• “If we make an exception for one group, we’ll have to do this foreverybody.” (Doing things differently is equated with making anexception, which is considered “unfair.” Therefore, no changes aremade.) • “If we make changes, we will water down what we have now.”(This statement is at the heart of the excellence versus equity debate.“Different” is equated with “substandard or inferior.” Changes arenot made.)• “If we have to do something different with you, something mustbe wrong with you.” (Therefore, you have the problem, not me. Sothere is no need for me to change anything.)• “If we have to do something different for you, you won’t suc-ceed.” (This assumption is often made when different tests are pro-posed. It is argued that students might not be successful in the gift-ed program because of a different test being used. A sub-assumptionis that there is something wrong with the newly proposed tests. Thesubsequent reasoning is that one should not risk the student beingunsuccessful. Nothing is done.) • “If it works for me, it should work for you.” (This is a self-cen-tered assumption that fails to consider that children are indeed dif-ferent. The focus is on the needs of the individual making the state-ment or on the group that he or she is seeking to protect, not on theneeds of the other person or group. Thus, if a certain test is appro-priate for one group, it is appropriate for another. No change ismade.)

Donna Y. Ford is Professor of Educationat Ohio State University, where she

teaches courses in gifted education. Herprimary research and consulting endeav-

ors focus on recruiting and retainingdiverse students in gifted education. She

is the author of ReversingUnderachievement Among Gifted Black

Students and Multicultural Gifted Education.


• “Nothing is wrong with the way we are doingthings; I like how we do things now.” (In otherwords, we may need to change, but we don’t wantto. And we don’t.)• “We’ve always done it this way.” (So whybother changing?)

Attitudes also help educators to shape definitions,choose assessments, and create policies and proce-dures (Ford et al., 2002). Given that gifted educa-tion is not federally mandated, school districtshave flexibility in defining giftedness as they seefit. Of the over 600 school districts nationally, it istheoretically possible to have over 600 definitionsof giftedness. Therefore, what is defined, per-ceived, and valued as giftedness in one school dis-trict may not be considered gifted in anotherschool district. Further, between 1972 and 1993, thefederal government has had four different defini-tions of giftedness, with the 1993 definition beingdrastically different from previous definitions.According to this definition:Children and youth with outstanding talent perform orshow the potential for performing at remarkably highlevels of accomplishment when compared with others oftheir age, experience, or environment. These childrenand youth exhibit high performance capacity in intellec-tual, creative, and/or artistic areas, and unusual leader-ship capacity, or excel in specific academic fields. Theyrequire services or activities not ordinarily provided bythe schools. Outstanding talents are present in childrenand youth from all cultural groups, across all economicstrata, and in all areas of human endeavor.

(U.S. Department of Education, p.26)

This definition distinguishes itself from prior fed-eral definitions in several ways. First, the defini-tion does not use the word “gifted”; instead itfocuses on ”talent.” Second, the definition focusesnot only on demonstrated ability, but also “poten-tial.” In doing so, it recognizes that some gifted(i.e., talented) students come to school with aca-demic experiences and exposure learned while athome, such that they demonstrate their talents,while others may be quite talented, but have limit-ed academic experiences and exposure. Theseexternally imposed limitations can (and do) effec-tively hinder children’s performance. Focusing onpotential and talent development allows educatorsto consider earnestly the needs and potential ofgifted underachievers, gifted students from lowsocioeconomic status (SES) backgrounds, and gift-ed students who are racially and linguisticallydiverse. Third, the definition notes that we mustrecognize many types of talent, not just ability andpotential in the academic and intellectual areas.This view is also consistent with those espousedby such contemporary theories as Gardner (1983)and Sternberg (1985). Finally, the definition notesthat no particular group has a monopoly on talent;talent can be found among students who live inpoverty and among students who are racially andlinguistically diverse. In essence, more than the

three previous federal definitions, the 1993 defini-tion is inclusive and dynamic, and addressesissues of equity.

When inclusiveness, excellence, and equity areeducational goals, it is possible that the number ofstudents identified as gifted will increase. Schoolsthat formerly admitted only 1-5 percent of theirstudents into gifted programs (based on IQ andachievement tests) may find that more studentsmay need gifted education services. Some educa-tors may see the inclusive philosophy or defini-tion, with its focus on potential and talent devel-opment, as a form of “watering or dumbingdown” the definition and, subsequently, wateringdown testing and services.

This notion of change being equated with “water-ing down” of assessments and services posesmany problems for me as an educator. It fails toconsider the impact of access, opportunity, andexposure on students’ performance. The wateringor dumbing down concept is one way to resistchange and, thus, to keep gifted programs over-whelmingly white and middle class (Ford, 1995). Itreminds me of the static belief, “If it ain’t broke,don’t fix it.” However, many minority and low SESchildren and their families can attest to the realitythat the educational system—the way gifted stu-dents are defined, assessed, and served—is brokenfor their children. Conversely, those parents andeducators whose children are “privileged”(McIntosh, 1988) to be identified and served asgifted are less likely to see (or even to consider)that the system is in need of serious repair.

The unfortunate reality is that social injustices (i.e.,racism and classism) take their toll on the testscores, motivation, and achievement of low SESand minority students and, accordingly, limit theiraccess to gifted education programs (Ford et al.,2002). According to Tannenbaum (1983), an indi-vidual will be gifted because of superior generalintelligence, exceptional special aptitudes, non-intellective facilitators (e.g., motivation), environ-mental influences, and chance or luck. Likewise,Piirto (1999), discusses the important role ofchance in fostering talent. She notes that, unfortu-nately, it could be said that when a studentemerges into adulthood with his or her talent nur-tured and developed, it is a miracle, because thereare so many influences that encroach on talentdevelopment. We all know or remember peoplewith outstanding talent who did not or were notable to use or develop that talent because of cir-cumstances—social, cultural, and economical.Essentially, achievement and giftedness must be

Dumbing Down continued

Attitudes appear to lie atthe heart of this debate.“

”


Dumbing Down continued

examined in context and, as described below, thosesituations that can be changed in school settingsmust be changed.

Where Do We Go From Here? Reaching DownFor GiftednessGifted education is a need rather than a privilege.Students do not ”deserve” gifted education servic-es––they require gifted education services. Thus,gifted education must be more about the businessof meeting needs and less about the business ofassigning labels and preserving the status quo.Accordingly, placement and services must bedesigned not only to challenge students, but alsoto meet their individual cognitive, academic, andcreative needs as gifted students.

The more students receive instruction at higherlevels—with or without a label—the more societybenefits. This is not to say that all students are gift-ed, but rather, all students can benefit from higher-level instruction, which is often reserved for stu-dents identified as gifted. Too often, students inspecial education and general/regular educationclassrooms are not taught at the higher levels ofinstruction. Therefore, many of these students fallfurther behind in achievement (see Figure 1). Theresult is a self-fulfilling prophecy, with low-achiev-ing students receiving low-level instruction andhigh-achieving students receiving high-level

instruction. There also seems to be a tendency tolose sight of which comes first. Does high-levelinstruction produce high-achieving students, or dowe simply give high-achieving students high-levelinstruction? The question is equally apropos forlow-achieving students. As educators, we ought tobelieve that low-achieving students will produce athigher levels when given the challenge.

Schools must become more reflective and examinethe effectiveness and efficacy of continuing businessas usual. If we continue to do what we’ve alwaysdone, we’ll continue to get what we’ve always got-ten. Diverse students come to school with a uniquehistory and a unique set of social-political problems,many of them related to past and present social ills.These social ills are in our homes, our schools, andsociety at large. While educators cannot controlwhat happens in students’ homes and in the largersociety, we do have much control over the decisionswe make in school settings, and we have controlover the philosophies and perspectives we adoptabout gifted students, culturally diverse students,and gifted education. What attitudes and practicesdeny access to gifted programs for diverse and lowSES students? Which correctable social ills areschools willing to correct? I am hopeful that theresponses support the notion that equity and excel-lence can and must co-exist in education and ourgifted programs. All educators must respond to thebasic question raised by Gardner (1983): “How canthe school provide all young people with certainbasics necessary to their common citizenship and atthe same time give them the diverse opportunitiesand treatment that their differential abilitiesrequire?” (p. 89). How do we make the most of gift-ed students who begin life with social disadvan-tages and who live daily with socially imposed dis-advantages? Our task as educators is to seek excel-lence and equity for all students; our task is to findways of marrying excellence and equity—withoutexception. ❖

References

Ford, D.Y. (1995). Desegregating Gifted Education: A Need Unmet. Journal of Negro Education, 64(1), 52-62.

Ford, D.Y.; Harris, J.J.; Tyson, C.A.; & Trotman, M.F. (2002). Beyond Deficit Thinking: Providing Access for Gifted African American Students. Roeper Review, 24(2), 52-58.

Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of Mind: the Theory of Multiple Intelligences. New York: Basic Books.

McIntosh, P. (1988). White Privilege and Male Privilege. Working Paper 189. MA: Wellesley College Center for Research on Women.

Piirto, J. (1999). Talented Children and Adults: Their Development and Education. Columbus, OH: Prentice Hall/Merrill.

Sternberg, R.J. (1985). Beyond IQ: A Triarchic Theory of Human Intelligence. MA: Cambridge University Press.

Tannenbaum, A. (1983). Gifted Children. New York: Macmillan.

U.S. Department of Education. (1993). National Excellence: ACase for Developing America’s Talent. Washington, DC.

Figure 1Bloom’s Taxonomy Applied Differently

to Students

High Achievers & Engaged

Low Achievers & Unmotivated

EvaluationSynthesisAnalysis

ApplicationComprehension

Knowledge

KnowledgeComprehension

Application

AnalysisSynthesisEvaluation


A Plea for YoungGifted Children

Joan Franklin Smutny

How can we identify young gifted children?

The story of Tammy Debbins, a talented 1st grader, is told byTorrance (1980) in a longitudinal study. Tammy was from the proj-ects; she had an IQ of 177. Like many young children, Tammy hadan imaginary companion. The school that Tammy attended didn’tunderstand either her high IQ or her need for an imaginary friend.The teachers tried to suppress Tammy’s imagination and creativeability. By 3rd grade, Tammy’s performance and creativity hadbecome average. Torrance reported that Tammy never used her tal-ents in high school or afterwards and that her greatest frustration inlife was that she wasn’t “very smart.”

During the past decade, and as a result of Torrance’s work, I havenoticed a growing recognition of the needs of young gifted learners.Parents have become more informed about this subject, and primaryteachers are more open to modifying curriculum for their high abil-ity students. In addition to these positive signs, more researchers arefocusing on the needs of young gifted children—including studentsfrom minority cultures and low socioeconomic communities—andeffective strategies for educating them.

Yet, despite these signs of progress, many school districts still do notadequately serve gifted students until grade 3 or 4. Many schools inthe United States still rely heavily on standardized tests for identifi-cation of these students. Even though standardized testing is unre-liable for primary-age children, no viable alternatives are providedfor identifying exceptional ability in this population. Young cultur-ally different gifted students are perhaps the most neglected—aminority within this minority. These children often attend schoolsthat lack funds for gifted education. They also lack the knowledgeand expertise to identify and serve advanced learners from minori-ty cultures. The schools often adopt a “deficit orientation” to theirculturally different and/or disadvantaged population. That is, theytend to look on these children as needing some form of remedialeducation before developing their talents and abilities (Kitano &Perez, 1998).

So, in view of these challenges, what can we do to stop the loss oftalent in young children like Tammy Debbins? I see four strategiesas indispensable steps to creating practical ways for schools to iden-tify them.

1. Recognize the Limits of Testing—It’s important to realize that,as a general rule, standardized tests may be inadequate measure-ments of ability in young children, and any score will most likely bean underestimation of what they can actually do. For young chil-dren, physical, social, and cognitive development is rapid and vari-able. Cognitive and motor skills come suddenly. One moment theskill is not observable; then it appears! Young children can also beeasily distracted, highly sensitive to noises, and uncomfortable withthe testing format. Young minority students face an additional chal-lenge in the cultural bias of many testing instruments (Bernal, 2001).

Joan Franklin Smutny is founder andDirector of the Center for Gifted at

National-Louis University, offering programs to over 3,000 gifted

children annually. Her books includeTeaching Young Gifted Children in theRegular Classroom, The Young Gifted

Child: Potential and Promise, anAnthology, Stand Up For

Your Gifted Child, and Designing andDeveloping Programs for Gifted Children.


Plea continued

A single assessment of a young child’s develop-ment—especially a standardized test—needs to beconsidered as a minimal estimation.

2. Network with Parents—Contrary to popularopinion, parents are reliable resources for identify-ing young gifted children. In fact, they are oftenthe most accurate judges of their children’s abili-ties, day one through age 7. Here is just one ofmany anecdotes I have heard from parents:

My daughter is in 1st grade but goes to 2nd grade formath. The teacher was discussing the commutativeproperty of addition with the class, saying that 3+5 isthe same as 5+3. She then asked about subtraction—is5-3 the same as 3-5? They decided that it is not. Theother students all said 3-5 is impossible, but Emilythought it is possible and that it is ‘under zero.’ Shesaid the answer is ‘2 under zero.’ She had invented aform of negative numbers all by herself.

Viewing their children in a wide variety of settingsand situations, parents are in a unique position toobserve gifted behavior. They are a rich mine ofinformation on a young child’s interests, learningstyles, and particular talent areas.

Among disadvantaged and culturally differentpopulations, parents may or may not recognize theabilities of their children. Teachers should be pre-pared to offer information and guidance. Here aresome useful guidelines for communicating withparents:• Give them an overview of the different waystalent can express itself, e.g., problem-solving abil-ity, insightfulness, creativity, artistry, musicality,improvisational ability, sensitivity toward others,leadership, physical grace, agility, etc.• Explain that you’re meeting with them becauseyou’d like their input on the abilities and learningstyles of their children, that this will help youadjust class activities to fit their needs. • Have materials you can share with them, aswell as lists of books and other resources they canuse to learn more on their own.

3. Observe, Observe, Observe—Consulting withparents gives primary teachers a head start onunderstanding the unique abilities and learningneeds of their students. In this regard, the FisherComprehensive Assessment of Giftedness Scale(1994) is an excellent resource for guiding educa-tors through the process. Teachers and parentsexamine children’s in-class and out-of-schoolbehaviors in response to their environment. Thescale ranks children’s sensibility—their keeninsight, enthusiasm, interest, in-depth focus, andcreative output. When combined with multipleintelligences (Gardner, 1993), the scale coversbroad areas of potential ability in young students(Fisher, 1998).

In many cases, teachers need to consider new waysof thinking about and observing giftedness.Fundamental to a fair assessment of ability are thefollowing: • Look for giftedness in more domains than theacademic (e.g., creative imagination, wit, improvi-sation, kinesthetic abilities, hands-on problemsolving, etc.). Become aware of your own ideasabout what giftedness looks like or what behaviorsindicate high potential. Don’t assume that giftedchildren are early readers or even high achievers.Don’t assume that an athletic child with littleinterest in academics or a bilingual student strug-gling with English is unlikely to be gifted. • Look beyond “good” or “bad” behavior.Consider the role that good behavior plays in yourschool’s assessment of a child’s ability. Do teacher-pleasers get more opportunity as a reward for theirgood behavior? While problem behaviors need tobe handled, some gifted kids act up because offrustration and boredom. • Create activities that demand higher-levelthinking and creative solutions. It is obvious thata child who needs hands-on activities to processinformation and analyze a problem will not showhis abilities if no such activities occur in his class-room. Be willing to incorporate different learningstyles and materials so that more young studentscan demonstrate their strengths.• Allow students to express their ideas in dif-ferent ways. For example, a child from anotherculture may have a novel solution to a problem butmay express this better through diagrams anddrawings than verbal or written expression. Offeryoung students a variety of ways to show whatthey are learning. • Ask children about their work. Don’t assumethat you know what a student is trying to do orwhether or not it works. Talk to the child. It may bethat his idea is more interesting or sophisticatedthan his ability to express it. Uneven developmentis common in young children, and cultural differ-ences may enhance this phenomenon.

…as a general rule, standardized tests may be inadequate measurements ofability in young children…

“”


When assessing the behavior of young children,teachers need to be sensitive to differences inlearning style, development, and cultural back-ground that influence the way they process infor-mation and respond to activities in the classroom.Gardner’s (1993) multiple intelligences andTorrance’s (1998) creative positives are helpfulsources for designing comprehensive checklistsand opening up the classroom to a more diverserange of gifts and talents in young children.4. Portfolios—As an adjunct to documentingobserved behaviors, collecting actual samples ofchildren’s work expands the process of identifica-tion even more. These samples could include: artwork, science experiments, construction projects,essays, conversations (written down or recorded),problem solving activities, and anecdotes.Obviously, there are cases where a child’s workdoes not result in a product we can see. This iswhere anecdotes become useful in filling in theblanks. Parents and community leaders as well asother teachers can contribute their stories as anongoing written record of abilities and achieve-ment.

Portfolios provide authentic assessment! Such evi-dence is valuable in determining instructionalplans, especially for children in kindergarten to3rd grade.

Advantages of portfolio assessment are that it• validates your observations and hunchesabout a child.• enables you to speak more informatively withparents and support staff about your plans.• builds a concrete bridge between you and par-ents so you can both see what the other is talkingabout.• helps you evaluate the child’s progress.• guides you to a more child-centered responsecurriculum.• broadens your ideas and choices to offer yourchildren.• justifies what to look for in identifying otherstudents and becomes a learning tool for you.• creates a source of pride and accomplishmentfor the child.

A portfolio is a strength model, not a record ofdeficits. Nothing negative goes in the portfolio! Aportfolio is a collection of products and observa-tions about children at home, school, and in theircommunity. Because expressions of giftednessvary in children and cultures, you will be lookingfor evidence in a wide range of contexts and abili-ty areas. A portfolio is a repository of what a childcan do.

Becoming more aware of the limitations of tradi-tional identification practices and the benefits ofusing more sources, teachers can ensure that feweryoung gifted students are denied the services theyneed. This is a vitally important goal as greaternumbers of these children look to us for advocacyand for opportunities to enter the world of giftededucation as equal citizens. As we embrace a larg-er vision of what early identification means to thethousands of underserved students (especiallyyoung gifted minority students), we will find thatby developing new ways to find these children, wealso gain a key to serving them. ❖

ReferencesBernal, E. (2001). Delivering Two-way Bilingual Immersion

Programs to the Gifted and Talented. In J.F. Smutny (Ed.), Underserved Gifted Populations. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

Fisher, M.D. (1998). A Sensibility Approach to Identifying and Assessing Young Gifted Children. In J.F. Smutny (Ed.), The Young Gifted Child: Potential and Promise, an Anthology. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

Fisher, M.D. (1994). Fisher Comprehensive Assessment of Giftedness Scale: What to Look for When Identifying Gifted Students. Manassas, VA: Gifted Education Press.

Gardner, H. (1993). Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligence. New York: Basic Books.

Kitano, M.K. & Perez, R.I. (1998). Developing the Potential of Young Gifted Children from Low-income and Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Backgrounds. In J.F. Smutny (Ed.), The Young Gifted Child: Potential and Promise, an Anthology. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

Torrance, E.P. (1980). Growing up Creatively Gifted: A 22-year Longitudinal Study. Creative Child and Adult Quarterly, 5(3), 148-158, 170.

Torrance, E.P. (1998). Talent among Children who are Economically Disadvantaged or Culturally Different. In J.F. Smutny (Ed.), The Young Gifted Child: Potential and Promise, an Anthology. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

Plea continued


Knots on aCounting Rope

Dorothy Sisk In the delightful book, Knots on a Counting Rope (1987), Martin andArchambault share a wonderful, supportive relationship between aboy and his grandfather. In this relationship, the grandfather tellsand retells the boy’s birth and life in hauntingly beautiful stories.This book is ostensibly for children, but in reality for everyone. Eachtime the grandfather retells the story, he knots the storytelling on acounting rope. In gifted education, we have heard many stories, andthere are many knots on our counting rope.

Standards-Based Education and High-Stakes TestingTwo current knots on the counting rope for gifted education arestandards-based education and high-stakes testing. In Florida theA+ program has motivated principals to focus on strategies thatimprove test scores, but reactions are mixed about the impact onachievement, particularly on the achievement of gifted students.Recently a gifted 5th-grade student who relocated to Florida wasasked a question by her aunt, who is a consultant in gifted educa-tion. “How is your new school?” The student candidly replied, “Wedo mostly math and reading, and we haven’t had social studies orscience since last month; we work on the FCAT (Florida Conceptsand Abilities Test).” This youngster is a high-achieving gifted stu-dent—one of three gifted students in the classroom who don’t needthe “review and drill” they are experiencing. Standards need to bemade developmental and flexible for gifted students served in theregular classroom.

Teaching Gifted in the Regular ClassroomProviding services for gifted students in the regular classroom as apreferred program model is another knot on our counting rope. Tomeet the individual needs of gifted students in the regular class-room, teachers need to adapt the curriculum and to make alterna-tives available for instructional materials, teaching strategies, cur-ricular goals, learning environments, instructional arrangements,and lesson formats. Yet, many teachers and principals are fearfulthat making adaptations to a standards-based curriculum willdiminish the curriculum and instruction. In fact, the opposite istrue. Creative adaptations help ensure that the curriculum is morerelevant, makes abstract concepts more concrete, and matches thelearning styles of individual students to the teacher’s teaching style.

Statewide AssessmentThe knot of statewide assessment is essential for teachers and par-ents to consider and to recognize that standards and testing are notthe same. Because standards require students to perform a range ofcompetencies, we need a range of assessments to measure the learn-ing of these competencies. Gifted students may think “outside thebox,” causing their approaches and answers to be different thanexpected. If school districts use only statewide assessments as iden-tification criteria for gifted programs, they will miss many creative-ly gifted students who approach items in a diverse fashion. Theymay also miss underachieving gifted students, many of whom are“twice exceptional,” “bilingual,” or just “non-motivated.”

Identifying and Including Underrepresented Students in GiftedProgramsWhere does the knot of identifying and including underrepresented

How can we be strong advocates for a gifted education that includes a broad

definition and programs that help giftedstudents develop according to their needs?

Dorothy Sisk holds the C. W. &Dorothy Ann Conn chair in Gifted

Education and directs the Center forGifted Children at Lamar University in

Beaumont, Texas.


Knots continued

students in the gifted program fit in? Many under-represented students––the current term for at-riskeconomically disadvantaged or culturally diversestudents––may have low self-esteem and deficien-cies in skill development. As new enrollees in gift-ed programs, these students may react with fearand anxiety when confronted with complex cur-riculum requiring task commitment and persever-ance. Faced with the knots of standards andstatewide assessment, these students from diversecultures, with different languages and traditions,may react with reluctance to perform. Whenunderrepresented students are not successful inthe gifted program, they are often faced with extraclassroom work, tutorials after school, and endlesshomework, or they are removed from the giftedprogram. These underrepresented students wouldbe better served in special classes in which theirskills could be developed and their self-esteemimproved in a caring, responsive environment,before being placed in a fast-paced gifted program.

Reaching Different Levels of Giftedness in aClassroomThe knot of effectively reaching different levels ofgiftedness in a classroom can be accomplished insmall groups and on an individual basis. I am cur-rently involved with a Javits grant in which mid-dle school students are enrolled in an IntegratedPhysics and Chemistry (IPC) class taught throughthe inquiry process. The curriculum is based onthe Texas state standards for physics and chem-istry for middle school students. Teachers havedeveloped six-week tests to measure studentprogress on these competencies. The dilemma isthat the Javits program requires a standardizedtest that may not yield an accurate picture of thestudent learning in inquiry or physics/chemistry.

There are considerable advantages to standards-based curriculum. It provides parents, teachers,and administrators with a common language fordiscussing student goals and progress, and inmany cases it raises the bar for instruction. Yet inmany cases, the standards are minimum stan-dards. Gifted students need to not only masterthese minimum standards, but they need to prac-tice related skills at greater depth and complexity.In one IPC classroom, the teacher shared the stan-dards with her gifted students, and they devel-oped individual contracts of programs of study tomeet the standards. These 8th-grade gifted stu-dents also assisted in developing standards-basedlessons. One student who assisted in developingactivities for a weekend Academy in Sciences said,“Standards are like a compass. You can see whereyou need to go and how high to aim.” I shared thetried-and-true homily, “If you don’t know whereyou’re going, how do you know when you getthere?” These gifted students have grasped whatmany educators haven’t grasped; standards areuseful for creating a rich vibrant curriculum andappropriate instruction, and they offer great

opportunities for gifted students to set high expec-tations for themselves.

Gifted Educators Are Off-TaskOne knot on our counting line signifies that aseducators of the gifted we have become distractedand off-task in meeting the needs of gifted stu-dents. We have forgotten what the founder of gift-ed education, Leta S. Hollingworth (Klein, 2002),said, “...[O]ne of the most important of all prob-lems for the development of social science is theproblem of how to recognize, educate, foster, andutilize the gifted young” (p. xiii). She recognizedthat gifted children have unique social and emo-tional needs and that not all gifted children arenecessarily alike. Hollingworth was intrigued byindividual differences and what she called mar-ginalized populations. She would laud us for ourefforts on behalf of underrepresented gifted stu-dents, for our efforts to ensure that gifted femalesreach their full potential, and our efforts to indi-vidualize programs for gifted students. She wouldbe appalled at our statements that gifted studentshave no greater vulnerability for emotional prob-lems than other students; that we attempt to haveall students, including gifted students, march tothe same drummer of standards-based education;that we require all students to do the same activi-ties; and that we devote slavish attention tostatewide assessments.

Tannenbaum (1997) reminds us that giftednessrequires social contexts that enable it to matureand that human potential cannot flourish in anarid cultural climate. In our growing multiculturalnation and world, we have abundant opportuni-ties to encourage giftedness in a rich cultural cli-mate. Tannenbaum goes on to say that, “giftednessneeds nurturance, urgings, encouragements, andeven pressures from a world that cares”(p. 37). Aseducators who care about gifted education, weneed to be strong advocates for a gifted educationthat includes a broad definition and programs thathelp gifted students develop according to theirneeds. Martin Luther King, Jr. said that intelligenceplus character is the true goal of education;enabling our gifted students to shape their livesand education toward making a difference is thetrue goal of gifted education. ❖

References

Klein, A. (2002). A Forgotten Voice: A Biography of Leta StetterHollingworth. Scottsdale, Arizona: Great Potential Press.

Martin, B. & Archambault, J. (1987). Knots on a Counting Rope. New York: Holt .

Tannenbaum, A. (1997). The Meaning and Making of Giftedness. In N. Colangelo and G. A. Davis (Eds.) Handbook of Gifted Education. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.


“What did you do in school today, Dear?” you ask in an earnest andheartfelt manner. “Oh, nothing,” is the response from your other-wise vibrant and curious child. Or worse, he tells you he spent theday practicing for the Colorado Student Assessment Program(CSAP), the mandated state testing program. Or worse still, yourchild’s grade report comes home, and you look at a rash of poorscores due to missing assignments. You wonder, not what he did inschool today, but if he did anything in school today. His answer, “Oh,nothing,” may be alarmingly accurate.

Either way, you have a problem. An opportunity to learn has beenlost, and you wonder if your child’s gifts are sinking to the bottomof the ocean while he treads water in the sea of standardized testcurricula. Ah, tests….the Lilliputians of the American education sys-tem. Okay, I’m exaggerating. Nonetheless, I bet you have a sense offoreboding.

It’s not misplaced. There isn’t time to waste in school. Currentresearch on how the brain works indicates that there are definitewindows of opportunity for learning certain skills and developingcertain cognitive abilities (Sousa, 2001). Neural connections are madeat a very rapid pace between the ages of birth to 10, faster than atany other time in a person’s life. It is the number of connectionsmade and the speed at which they generate thought that we call“intelligence.” Obviously, learning continues throughout a person’slife, and recent studies of stroke victims prove that new neural con-nections can be made, but they are not being made at the same rateas in young children. So, a day at school where “nothing” happensmight be calculated in terms of unmade neural connections—anopportunity lost.

Then comes puberty. The pace of forming new neural connectionsdrops, and the brain begins housecleaning. Connections it deemsuseful become permanent, while others are cast aside. The questionthen is, what makes the brain value certain connections over others?The answer has to do with the amount of exercise those neural path-ways and connections have received over the years. The brainassigns importance to connections that are used more often. So, neu-ral pathways for math will stay if new mathematical input isreceived. The old adage “use it or lose it” has a much more validapplication in terms of the brain and justifies your concern whenyou hear that “nothing” happened in school today.

I can assure you, however, that things do happen at school. Lessonsare prepared, resources are provided, and information is presented.Whether or not your child’s brain can take full advantage of it is thequestion. We know that the brain is a naturally curious organ,designed to absorb, assimilate, and ascribe data to memory, so whydoes its attention drift when data is available? Part of the answer liesin what we know about highly intelligent people. They have alreadydeveloped very extensive and efficient neural pathways, so newinformation is processed at a very rapid rate and connected to priorexperience in all its diversity. The teacher may not have completedhis introduction when the gifted student’s brain is ready to moveon. Desperate for stimulation, the brain turns to observing what elseis happening in the room. Someone is tapping a foot, and thatreminds our gifted brain of other times and places, like the bandconductor in the park last summer when Grandma was here justbefore the hurricane that destroyed the beach where she lives….

Bringing the Brainto Class

Carmany Thorp

How can we adults encourage the giftedchild’s brain to make the most of he learning opportunities with which

he is presented?

Carmany Thorp is a Gifted/TalentedResource Teacher at West Middle School

in Cherry Creek School District,Colorado.


You see? Attention has shifted. By the time theteacher has given the key directions to completingthe learning assignment, our gifted child may beinventing weather machines.

Pacing of instruction, with purposeful shifts infocus and attention, is a critical element of keepingthe gifted mind on task. Teachers, who limit lec-ture time, can provide short exercises for practicefollowed by discussion and feedback. Thus, theycan keep an active mind engaged. However, therealities of the classroom require that the teacherre-teach material and give multiple opportunitiesto practice new skills over an extended period oftime. This is time that the gifted learner may notneed.

What can be done to fill this time? How can weadults encourage the gifted child’s brain to makethe most of the learning opportunities with whichshe is presented? Schools can offer programmingfor the gifted that includes enrichment classes,accelerated classes, and teachers trained in varyingthe levels of instruction in the mainstream class-room. The gifted child needs enriching experi-ences. If the teacher does not provide these enrich-ing experiences, the student needs strategies forcreating enrichment for herself. This is not asimpossible as it sounds. Parents and teachers alikecan provide training to children––even young chil-dren––in how to activate their own brainpowerand slather enrichment onto the Melba toast ofstandardized curricula.

In terms of brain activity, every enriching experi-ence includes common factors (Jenson 2000),which can be woven into a game that we can teachour children to play. • First, enriching activities start with materialthat seems strange and wondrous, or at least dif-ferent, to the child’s brain. The brain seeks novelty.It likes to work on identifying, classifying, com-paring, and contrasting. • Secondly, the brain wants a challenge. If itsenses there is a problem to be solved, somethingmysterious, something useful, there is no holdingback. It will devote all its energy and resources totackling the sticky issues––hence, the child whoinvents weather machines! • Finally, all enriching experiences require feed-back. The brain needs to know it’s on the righttrack. This is so critical that without feedback thebrain simply abandons the pursuit.

20 Connections (or should we say Material ThatSeems Strange and Wondrous?)The game we can teach our children is called 20Connections. Modeled after the ever-popular 20Questions, where one person thinks of an object (oridea) and the players are allowed 20 yes/no ques-tions to discover the object, 20 Connections is alsoa game of discovery. However, in this game, youstart with the known and discover all the possibleunknowns that could spring from it. Rather thanasking, “Is it animal, mineral, or vegetable?” our

game begins with asking, “Can I feel it, know it, oruse it?”

In this case, feeling refers to having an emotionalconnection and reaction to the material, not sens-ing it through touch. It is our emotional connectionto knowledge that shapes how it is stored andretrieved. Knowing means finding what it is relat-ed to, and use it builds a sense of purpose so thebrain is willing to undertake the laborious but nat-ural process of learning from it. These three con-cepts prepare the brain to manipulate the data it isabout to receive. This is how the brain can createsomething strange and wondrous out of otherwisemundane beginnings.

For example, the teacher says, “Okay, class, todaywe’re going to learn about the causes of the CivilWar...” A student might say to himself, “Whocares?” and that would be the end of his engage-ment in the topic; after all, the teacher didn’t domuch to pique anyone’s interest. The player of 20Questions might say, “Do I know about the causesand should I make a list of them? Yes, but that’sdull.” So he moves to the next question. “How doI feel about war and being in it? If I don’t like war,how might one be prevented?” By extending one’sbrain energy beyond thinking about facts toexpressing emotions, questions about how to usethe information in the real world follownaturally. This student has now personalized aninterest in the causes of the Civil War and willprobably come out of the unit with a greater depthof understanding than the teacher may have antic-ipated. It’s important in our standards-based sys-tem that our gifted children go above and beyondthe standard curriculum on their own.

Given this example, you might think that the ques-tion, “Do I know it?” is irrelevant, and that chil-dren will always answer in the affirmative andthen dismiss it. The student who knows how toask the question, “Do I know it?” will instigate aprotocol: “How can I know it? What do I have todo to know it? How will it be cross-referenced withwhat I know already?”

With young children, this seems an impossibletask. If you’re looking for results tomorrow, it willbe impossible. These questions and thinking tech-niques need to be modeled by “thinking out loud.”While you are musing, you will be amusing yourchild’s brain!

A very young child can be asked to name all thethings she knows as “red.” Watch for the childwho responds, “…the book I just finished.”

Older children love playing the commercially pro-duced game called Scattergories. The SAT examemploys a more sophisticated version in the sec-tion on analogies. The real value in these games isto link objects and ideas to each other. The brainwill make many new neural connections from thesame input, so retrieval of even one fact becomesmuch more probable. When this game is played inone’s head in the classroom the brain may take itsown flights of fancy, but they will be more ground-ed in the teacher’s curriculum.

Brain continued


ChallengeThe second ingredient of an enriching experienceis challenge. Teachers often present material in theform of a problem such as “”If you were in charge,how would you solve the conflict?” To solve sucha problem, the student would have to research thebackground information, examine solutions forthe long-term consequences, and defend the solu-tion. Those steps alone involve all the brain’s fac-ulties. However, not all school curricula are pre-sented in such a format. So, children can ask thenext question in the game of 20 Connections: “If Iwere a grown-up, what would I be doing with thismaterial?” The exciting parts of an adult’s joboccur when there is a goal to be reached, and thetools and resources are available to reach it. Settinga goal is another way of phrasing a problem. Forthe gifted child who is already capable of thinkingabout complex issues, this gives a context in whichto do it.

FeedbackFinally, we adults need to be available to give feed-back. To this point, the child has been playing thisgame quietly on her own. It is not a real experienceuntil it is shared, and she has to articulate herthinking in some way. Teachers can allow time forall students to share what they learned in the classand can celebrate the far-flung connections ourgame-playing student has made. Or teachers canask students to keep journals of their thoughts inclass that can be shared privately or publicly.Ideally there might be time for students to conducta more in-depth study and individualized projectto present to the whole class.

Parents can do more at home by asking pointedquestions about what happened in school today.Asking “What did you think about in social stud-ies today?” or “What book are you reading andhow do you feel about the conflict in it?” will allowyour child to test out her thinking with an older,more experienced human being. Happily, youdon’t have to have a particularly lucid or intelli-gent reaction, as it is in the process of articulatingthe thoughts that the brain will use to judge foritself the value. Of course, any pearls of wisdomyou may have will be accepted or rejected depend-ing on your child’s age! ❖

ReferencesJensen, E. (2000). Brain-Based Learning. San Diego, CA:

Brain Store.Sousa, D. (2001). How the Brain Learns. Thousand Oaks,

CA: Corwin Press.

Brain continued DepartmentsWhat Readers Have To Say…..

A Letter Never SentTwo years ago I had a highly gifted child in myclassroom. The following letter expresses how thischild affected me as a teacher. I had a very difficulttime letting her go; I felt that there would be thosewho truly did not understand her and would try to“keep her in the box.” In order for me to “let her go,”I needed to write her a letter that she would neverread. In fact, only a small handful of people haveread this letter. I would like to share this letter withyou. Jane was 6 years old when I wrote this.

Pamela ProvenzanoIllinois

Dear Jane,I want to tell you and your family that you are all

right; you are as you should be. Your parents and Iknow, and you are probably aware of this, that youare extremely intellectual, sensitive, imaginative, andemotional. You feel things very deeply. I know thatthe noise in this world bothers you and sometimesstops you from doing what you would like to do, butthis is the noise of reality and, unfortunately, must bedealt with. I know that you have worried about worldpeace this last school year, and that you were proudwhen our school took your suggestions and hadPeace Day. Continue to tell Student Council aboutyour social and world concerns.You do make a differ-ence. I read about a man named KazimierzDabrowski who studied humanity and placed it infive levels of development. I know you like to readbiographies, so you might like to read about himsomeday. He says that adults who feel like you do canchange the world and bring world peace all becauseof the many sensitivities that they have. These sensi-tivities, however, must continue to be developed inchildren, so I hope you always find a place in schoolthat allows you to grow.

As you get older, you may find that school is nolonger exciting.You may find teachers who want youto do things their own way and will not listen to yourideas. Please don’t be discouraged. You may have todo things their way to get the grade, but never losewho you are. It is my sincere hope that your sensitiv-ities are recognized as truly gifted characteristics, andthat they are fostered, so you can reach your fullpotential in life.

So, Jane, you are all right, because you are simplygifted. Never lose your dream for world peace. Bethat one snowflake that breaks the snow-laden treebranch. Be yourself, and one day your dream may berealized.

For all the Janes in this world….Peacefully yours,Mrs. P.

Log-on to theInternetanywhere,anytime. . . .readUnderstandingOur Gifted

GUnderstandingOur

IFTEDOnline

www.our-gifted.com

Introductory rates: $32 Individual SAVE $5 $46 Institution SAVE $3

InstitutionsUp to 5 Online Subscribers $99

Replace your mailed print subscription....NO Ship/Handling

800-494-6178 / [email protected]

www.openspacecomm.comwww.our-gifted.com (online journal)

SUBSCRIBE NOWSAVE!

OFFER GOOD THROUGHMay 30, 2003

U.S. Only

pen Space CommunicationsUSE ORDER FORM IN THIS ISSUE

[email protected]

MORE SPECIALOFFERS

Visit our Web Sitewww.openspacecomm.com

Plus 10% Shipping/ Handling - minimum $5

UnderstandingOur Gifted

Two Back Issue Discounts:

#1- VOLUMES 4-8 $2.50each (8 issue minimum)

#2- VOLUMES 9-12 $5.50each (4 issue minimum)

SAVE ONSPECIALS

Volume 4-8 $8 each + S/H - $15 Internationalq 4-1 Student Researchq 4-2 Technology and Educationq 4-3 Empowering Parentsq 4-4 Assessing the Giftedq 4-5 Collaborative Effortsq 4-6 Family Relationshipsq 5-1 Homeschoolingq 5-2 Promising Practicesq 5-3 Parent Advocacyq 5-5 Young Gifted Childq 5-5a Being Out of Syncq 5-6 Philosophy of Giftednessq 6-1 Valuing Parentsq 6-2 Excellence Revisitedq 6-3 Networkingq 6-4 Talent Searchesq 6-5 Attention Deficit Disordersq 6-6 Mainstreamingq 7-1 Spectrum of Giftednessq 7-2 Update On Technologyq 7-3 Gifted Young Childrenq 7-4 Secondary Gifted Studentsq 7-5 Exploring Creativityq 7-6 Mutual Educationq 8-1 Multicultural Issuesq 8-2 Gifted Students Upper Elem./Middleq 8-3 The Visual Learnerq 8-4 Parenting & Teaching Gifted Childrenq 8-5 Global Connections / Gifted Studentsq 8-6 Affective Needs Volume 9-13 $14 each + S/H - $20 Internationalq 9-1 Perfectionismq 9-2 Gifted Ed. & the Lawq 9-3 Inside Giftednessq 9-4 Learning Differencesq 10-1 Educational Optionsq 10-2 Intelligence Revisitedq 10-3 Parenting & Advocacyq 10-4 Curriculumq 11-1 The Total Childq 11-2 Gifted Girlsq 11-3 Asynchronyq 11-4 Teaching Teachersq 12-1 Millennium: Look Forward, Backq 12-2 Levels of Giftednessq 12-3 Technologyq 12-4 Nature vs. Nurtureq 13-1 Definitions of Giftednessq 13-2 Addressing Giftednessq 13-3 The �G� Wordq 13-4 Creativity Volume 14-15 $16 each + S/H - $25 Internationalq 14-1 Options in Educationq 14-2 Twice Exceptionalq 14-3 Social Emotionalq 14-4 Critical Thinkingq 15-1 Differentiation SPECIALS: Vol.4-8 $2.50 each/minimum 8 issues Vol.9-12 $5.50 each/minimum 4 issues

Understanding Our Gifted Back Issues

800-494-6178 Call for Out-of-Print Pricing - Vol. 1-3 [email protected]

U.S. only - until May 30, 2003 All Orders - Add Ship/Handling

Order Form○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

Understanding Our Gifted Subscription - Published Quarterly

SAVE - ONLINE SUB - $32 Individual/$46 Institution Online $________(Institutions - up to 5 subscribers - $99) $________PRINT SUB U.S. $37 Individual-$49 Institution Print $________International $58 Individual-$68 Institution U.S. Funds Print $________Back Issues Vol. 4-8 $8 each/Vol. 9-13 $14 each/Vol.14-15 $16 $________International Vol. 4-8 $15 each/Vol. 9-13 $20 each/Vol.14-15 $25 U.S. $__________Special Back Issue Offer thru May 30, 2003 - Check Issues above $________

Professional Development Series Books__ Affective Education $14.25 $__________ Parent Education $14.25 ___Spanish Version $10 $__________ Teens With Talent $15.45 $__________ Smarter Kids $15.45 ___All 4 Books SPECIAL $49.95 $________

Audio Tapes__ Giftedness & the Visual Learner-Freed $10 $__________ Social/Emotional-Betts/ADD-Dorry $10 $__________ Perfectionism-Fertig $10 $__________ Underserved Gifted-Smutny $10 $__________ Learning Styles/ADD-Freed $15 _Special Both Freed Tapes $20 $__________G/T & CSAP: Succeeding at Both-Scott Plus side 2: Underserved Gifted-Smutny $12 $________

Shipping/Handling $________U.S.: 10%-$5 minimum /Canada: 20%-$10 minimum (all publications)

All other countries: 20%-$25 minimum (all publications)

Total Enclosed U.S. Funds $________

Name

Institution

Address

City

State or Province

Zip or Postal Code

Country

E-mail

VISA/MasterCard #

Expiration

P.O. #

Mail to: Open Space CommunicationsP.O. Box 18268, Boulder, CO 80308

Place your order on our web:www.openspacecomm.com

REQUIRED FOR ONLINE SUBSCRIPTIONS


Columns

Surfing the NetAre We Dumbing Down Our

Daughters?

Sandra Berger

In 1992, Mattel Toys introduced the first talkingBarbie doll. Barbie’s first words were, “Math classis tough.” Mattel was well intentioned. Theybelieved they were reflecting the true feelings ofgirls and young women. Many parents and teach-ers thought Barbie should keep her mouth shut. Asa result, Barbie stopped talking for almost adecade.

Women have been underrepresented in science,technology, engineering, and mathematics careers,and while they have substantially increased theirnumbers in some technology-related disciplines,they still fall far below occupational equality withmen in fields such as physics, computer science,and engineering. The United States Department ofCommerce and the Census Bureau report thatwomen represent 46 percent of the total workforce, but only 30 percent of the InformationTechnology (IT) work force. The percentage ofwomen getting computer science degrees hasdeclined drastically since 1986.

Is it any wonder that Mattel’s engineers (mostlymen) thought they were expressing the true feel-ings of young girls and women?

Despite comparable achievement in math and sci-ence courses on the part of males and females,females begin to doubt their own abilities as earlyas 7th grade. Because females underestimate theirown abilities, they begin taking fewer math andscience courses than their male schoolmates, atrend that accelerates in high school. Boys are morelikely than girls to take all three core science cours-es—biology, chemistry, and physics. Of these,physics—a field that tends to be more dependenton technology for simulations—shows the largestgap. According to the American Association ofUniversity Women (AAUW) in 2000, girls make uponly 17 percent of students in AdvancedPlacement computer science classes. The percent-age of girls from some minority groups is evensmaller.

While girls have narrowed the gender gaps inmath and science somewhat, technology hasbecome the new “boys club.” To understand thetechnology gender gap, we need only to look atyoung children as they enter school. Girls use com-puters less often outside of school and are less like-ly to enter school with computer experience. Byage 5 or 6, many boys have had experience withcomputerized game systems such as Nintendo orXbox. School software programs often reinforcegender bias and stereotypical gender roles. Girlsconsistently rate themselves significantly lowerthan boys on computer ability, and boys exhibithigher self-confidence and more positive attitudesabout computers than do girls. Even with similarexposure to courses and similar achievement lev-els, girls are less confident of their ability and lessinterested in science and engineering careers.

Girls’ attitudes about computers, however, are notthe central issue; nor are college degrees, especial-ly since studies report that the majority of womenin IT professions did not major in ITwww.ohiou.edu/news/01-02/311.html. The centralissue is far more significant—computer scienceand information technology are inextricablylinked to advanced problem solving. According tothe most recent National Assessment ofEducational Progress (NAEP), grade-12 males out-performed females on conceptual understandingand practical reasoning nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/science/result. Students whoanalyzed data with computers at least monthly—more males than females—scored 16 points higherthan those who never did and six points higherthan those who did so less than once a month. Bothdifferences are statistically significant.

A question that emerges is, if girls are opting out ofadvanced science and IT, are they also opting outof experiences that build advanced problem solv-ing ability? Are we dumbing down gifted girls?

Following are some perspectives and strategies onpreventing dumbing down in females:

Encouragement and SupportAlmost two-thirds of the women surveyed in theNSF study cited encouragement by male figures intheir lives as a major factor in their career selection.That finding isn’t a complete surprise, theresearchers say, given that men are more likelythan women to be employed in the informationtechnology field.

Intellectual Challenge“A love of problem solving, a love of the challengereally came across,” said the lead author of thestudy, which was presented at the annual meetingof the American Educational Research Association(AERA) in New Orleans in April 2002. This findingwas in line with a report two years ago by theAAUW Educational Foundation that indicatedthat girls aren’t afraid of technology. Boring videogames, dull programming classes, and uninspiringcareer options turn them off.


Surfing the Net continued

Prestige and SalaryThe majority of women studied were drawn to theindustry for the challenge—not the paycheckwww.ohiou.edu/news/01-02/311.html. While theIT industry is often billed as a high-paying fieldoffering many job opportunities, few women inthe survey mentioned the wide availability of ITjobs or the big paychecks as major motivators. “Ifyou want to get more women involved in thisfield, talking about the money is not going to doit,” one researcher said.

Advanced StudyAn undergraduate degree in engineering or com-puter science is not necessarily a prerequisite for acareer in IT. The NSF survey demonstrated that themajority of women studied do not hold technolo-gy-related degrees. Some entered the informationtechnology field by earning graduate degrees incomputer science or information systems, whileothers landed positions through on-the-job experi-ences and training.

GamesGirls turn off to technology at an early age throughcomputer games and software that are mass-mar-keted toward boys. Many girls dislike violentvideo games; rather, they want games that are per-sonalized and creative, where they can developrelationships with the characters. Of the thousandsof games available, the number designed for andmarketed to girls falls well below 100.

Games can be used to stimulate student interest intechnology when they are free of gender bias anddesigned to appeal to both sexes. Because gamesare viewed as “play,” they can engage students inproblem solving in a relaxed atmosphere, thushelping them to develop skills without fear of risktaking. Low-threat, high-challenge play, and cog-nitive activities have proven to be motivationalinfluences for learning.

To interest girls and young women, three criteriashould govern software choices: www.enc.org/focus/edtech/document.shtm?input=FOC-000697-index#11. Is the game educational? Does it encourageproblem solving and creativity? Is it technological-ly sophisticated?2. Is the game equitable? Does it challenge ratherthan reinforce stereotypes that limit a girl’s notionof who she can be and what she can accomplish?3. Is it a good game? Is it fun? Is it challenging?Does it encourage persistence?

A recent check of a premier software reviewerSoftware for Kids www.superkids.com/aweb/pages/search/subject.cgi?terms=Girls turned up along list of software based on Barbie and similardubious role models. There is nothing wrong withBarbie as Rapunzel—my 5-year-old granddaugh-ter placed that doll at the top of her holiday wish

list—but the list comprised an inordinate numberof software packages like Barbie and Disney’sPrincess, and very few of the packages from theLearning Company, one of the more educationallysound manufacturers.

Increasing girls’ computer use may be necessary toincrease their interest in computer science, but it isnot enough. After all, computer science isn’t onlyabout computers. Computer science (which reallyshould be called computing science) is the study ofcomputation; computers are merely the tools per-forming the computation. What girls mean whenthey say they like computers is that they like usingapplications such as word processing, spread-sheets, and graphics. Computer science is justthat—a science with problems, conjectures, explo-rations, tests, and solutions math.rice.edu/~lanius/club/girls3.html. The skillsthat girls develop in studying computer science,are the skills they will need for smart decision-making throughout their entire lives.

Let’s look at some of the Web sites that can be usedto support and encourage girls and young women.

CyberPink: Are Software Companies Selling OurGirls Short?www.wfco.org/pdf/Research%20&%20Publications/Cyberpink%20Report.pdfThis report by the Women’s Foundation ofColorado explores why it is important to encour-age girls in the use of technology, what discour-ages girls’ interest in computers, and some of therecent trends in the girl gaming industry. Girl-friendly software is software that 1. is fun for girls 2. is technically sophisticated 3. challenges, rather than reinforces, stereotypesthat limit girls’ notions of who they can be andwhat they can accomplish.

Teaching and Learning High School Mathema-tics through Inquirywww.metiri.com/Solutions/HSES.docwww.ncrel.org/engauge/resource/hs.htm

The United States Department of Educationreviewed programs designed to improve highschool students’ understanding of mathematics byincorporating instructional technology effectivelyinto the curriculum. Using criteria backed byresearch on learning and instruction, they selectednine exemplary programs from among thosereviewed. Important details and software reviewscan be found on the Web site of the North CentralRegional Educational Laboratory www.ncrel.org/engauge/resource/hs.htm.

Activities That Teachers Can Easily Integrate intoa Course of Study Focused on InquiryAutodesk: Design Your Futurewww.autodesk.com/dyf/dyfmain2.htmlDesign Your Future encourages young women inmiddle and high school to pursue careers in math,science, and technology. It has extensive informa-tion that will answer many common questions and


make technical fields seem more accessible andeven fun. There are many bios of working womenwhich describe the daily activities and challengesinvolved in their jobs. College advice is provided.

CEEE TeacherTECH Lesson Planswww.crpc.rice.edu/CRPC/Women/GirlTECH/LessonsTeacherTECH teachers designed this searchabledatabase of lesson plans to take full advantage ofInternet resources and to teach mathematics andscience concepts in new and exciting ways.

Center for Women and Information Technology(CWIT)www.umbc.edu/cwitLocated at the University of Maryland BaltimoreCounty, the CWIT was named “the best resourceon women and technology on the Web” byABCNews.com. The center’s primary goal is topromote women’s involvement in the IT industry.CWIT’s site provides a wealth of information forwomen, ranging from learning the basics of com-puters to IT training and certification. Women con-sidering IT as a field of study will also find infor-mation on financial aid and the CWIT ScholarsProgram. This is a great site for a career day activ-ity.

ColorMathPink.comwww.ColorMathPink.comDesigned to help middle and high school girlsexcel at math, this site seeks to improve math skillsfor girls of all ages by presenting math in the waygirls learn best, through cooperation and commu-nication. The Career Corner discusses how mathskills relate to the real world. Tutors are availablefor middle school math through calculus. If youcan serve as a tutor or contribute math exams youare no longer using, the site administrators wouldappreciate hearing from you.

Engineer Girlwww.engineergirl.org/nae/cwe/egmain.nsf/?OpendatabaseOperated by the National Academy ofEngineering, Engineer Girl is aimed at increasingawareness of the opportunities that exist in thisprofession for women and girls. There is a lot ofmaterial covered on the site, providing a goodunderstanding of what engineering is and why itis important. Information about the many differentdisciplines within engineering is sure to sparkinterest in girls. Tips to help girls orient their edu-cation toward engineering are also included, e.g.,what classes to take, how to prepare for college,and how to get scholarships.

Expect the Best from a Girlwww.academic.orgThis site makes sure everyone knows that girls arejust as smart as boys. There’s a resource section forparents, and kids can check out the listing of spe-

cial programs for girls.

Girltechwww.girltech.comGirltech has eight areas that are designed to helpgirls use the Internet to find information and shareideas. The site encourages girls in the use of tech-nology by creating products and services just forthem. Famous women are featured as role models,and girls are encouraged to follow their dreamsand to develop inventions.

Girl Power!www.girlpower.govThe national public education campaign spon-sored by the United States Department of Healthand Human Services is designed to help encour-age and motivate 9- to 13- year-old girls to makethe most of their lives.

Girls to the Fourth Power Algebra Programwww.stanford.edu/~meehan/xyz/girls4.htmlGirls To The Fourth Power was a pilot algebra-tutoring program, run in the summer of 1996. Theprogram no longer exists, but the Web site is funand interesting.

Helping Girls Succeed (ages 9 to 16)www.ipl.org/div/teen/esteemCreated by the Internet Public Library (IPL), thissite informs educators, counselors, parents, andlibrarians of the wealth of resources available thataddress the unique needs of preteen and adoles-cent girls. You’ll find books and Web sites for girlsand for the adults who care about them.

Kids Design Network (KDN)www.dupagechildrensmuseum.org/kdnOffered by the DuPage Children’s Museum, theKids Design Network is a free program that giveselementary school students an opportunity tosolve real-life engineering problems. After regis-tering, students can choose which of six challengesis most intriguing. Once they pick a challenge,they can draw their design solution on the KDNdrawing board (It will be saved in the account.). Ifstudents need help, they can sign up to talk with aKDN engineer through online chat.

Pi Day Activitieswww.exploratorium.edu/learning_studio/pi (Exploratorium)mathforum.org/t2t/faq/faq.pi.html (Math ForumFAQ)One of my favorite holidays is Pi Day, March 14.Each year I send my friends a card and I bring piesto my office. We sing Pi songs, eat pie, and have agreat time. Some teachers serve pizza pie to theirclasses, and I’m willing to bet that the kids remem-ber Pi for a long time. Pi Day is also AlbertEinstein’s birthday. You will find Pi Day Songs at:www.winternet.com/~mchristi/piday.html

ThinkerToolsthinkertools.soe.berkeley.edu/simulate.htmlThinkerTools is a Newtonian force and motion



simulation environment for the Macintosh.(Simulations stimulate higher-level thinking.) TheThinkerTools curriculum scaffolds scientificinquiry using both simulated and “real-world”experiments.

Women of NASAquest.arc.nasa.gov/womenThe National Aeronautics and SpaceAdministration (NASA) is working hard toencourage women to enter careers in mathematics,science, and engineering. This site is a wonderfulresource for educators wishing to encourage theirfemale students to challenge themselves, feel con-fident with their successes, and accept their fail-ures. There is also a Spanish section on-site, pro-viding educational resources and information onlearning the Spanish language.

ResourcesAmerican Association of University Women(2000). Tech-Savvy: Educating Girls in the NewComputer Age www.aauw.org/2000/techsavvy.html

Encouraging Girls in Science and Math––ERICDigestwww.accesseric.org/resources/ericreview/vol6no2/encourage.html

Mid-Atlantic Equity Consortiumwww.maec.org

National Science Foundation––letter introducingthe research studywww.nsf.gov/pubs/2000/nsf0077/nsf0077.htm

Institutes and CentersGender and Science Digital Library––funded byNSFwww.edc.org/GDI/GSDL

Center for Women in Information Technology,University of Maryland.www.umbc.edu/cwit

Women in the Information Age Project, HarvardKennedy School of Government. www.ksg.harvard.edu/witia

The Center for Gender Equity––promotes technol-ogy, science, and mathematics as careers.www.wri-edu.org/equity/index.htm

Women’s Equity Resource Center––increases edu-cational opportunities and outcomes for all stu-dents by focusing on gender.www.edc.org/WomensEquity

[email protected]


The Affective SideProgramming Beyond

the Label

Jean Strop

Within the gifted education profession, as in allfacets of special education, the debate about elit-ism (exclusion) versus inclusion rages on. Becauserational arguments can be offered for each defini-tion of giftedness, the word gifted now carries amultitude of definitions, meaning different thingsto different people in different contexts. Thesemantic solution of assigning the label “gifted”for all types of cognitive abilities and talents hassalved our philosophical egos. However, this pla-cating move in the profession has become a sourceof distress for students, teachers, parents, and gift-ed educators in the “real world of school,” espe-cially when it is inferred that the gifted labelmeans being gifted in all areas.

Direct Effect on StudentsThe only students who fit favorably in the all-encompassing definition of giftedness are thosestudents who are indeed highly skilled or able inall areas of study. However, the student who is“gifted” in only one or two areas may be expectedto be strong in all areas. This student will often-times attempt a program that is too difficult. Thischoice may be made to compete with those well-rounded students she perceives as intellectualpeers. Consequently, it is not unusual for thesestudents to become overwhelmed in their chosencurriculum because it is so hard to master. Theymay develop unreasonably high self-expectations,yet be crippled by skill deficits and/or the inabili-ty to truly compete. To save face, these types ofstudents often resort to underachievement, lyingabout task completion, or cheating to cover forweaknesses. This pattern of distress and dishon-

The ideas expressed in this article are the author’s and do not neces-sarily represent the views of the CEC or ERIC Clearinghouse onDisabilities and Gifted Education. The URLs were accurate andworking when last checked. The Internet is a dynamic place, andchanges occur rapidly and without the server, the server might betemporarily down, or the URL might have changed. Try again lateror truncate the URL.

Sandra Berger is the Information Specialist for GiftedEducation at the ERIC Clearinghouse on Disabilities and GiftedEducation in Arlington, Virginia. She is the author of CollegePlanning for Gifted Students.


Programming continued

esty can cause severe damage to self-concept. Thedamaged self-concept, in turn, interferes with thestudent’s abilities to take educational risks or toask for help.

Indirect Effects on StudentsStudents’ perceptions and expectations have astrong impact. In addition, teachers and parentsmay indirectly influence students in a negativeway when they over-generalize the meaning ofgiftedness.

Teacher Responses—Teachers are currently askedto respond to the accommodations required bysome students with legal individual educationplans (IEP’s) and 504 plans. To ask them to differ-entiate instruction within the classroom as wellmay be overwhelming (if not impossible).Consequently, a student thought to be gifted, butseemingly “choosing not to perform,” may be per-ceived as an unwelcome burden on an alreadystressed teacher.

If a student is believed to be “gifted” and can’tmanage the curricular demands of a class, it is veryeasy for the teacher to see him as lazy. This is onlylogical because it appears that he “won’t” do thework. Also, if the teacher sees that a student in theclass cannot master the concepts, the teacher islikely to slow the pace or to water down the con-cepts to help the student achieve mastery. Thisprocess may, in turn, frustrate and stifle the learn-ing process of those students who can easily mas-ter the class work. When teachers find out that stu-dents not making the cut in their classrooms havebeen labeled “gifted,” these teachers may form anegative or skeptical opinion about all studentswho are considered gifted. This belief system maycause the teacher to have a variety of other reac-tions that impact the struggling labeled student.The teacher may 1. make the class even more difficult, thinking thenon-performing student is bored and/or needsmore challenge 2. fail to give students necessary assistancebecause the students are perceived as lazy or notputting in sufficient effort 3. distrust the label so much that she underesti-mates the abilities of other students who are trulyoutstanding in that field of study 4. carry the student along because he seemed tosurvive just fine in the preceding class. The teachermay believe that something situational is gettingin the way of performance 5. overemphasize the weaknesses and flaws ofstudents with the label to prove a point—that thesestudents are not as smart as they and their parentsbelieve them to be

All of these responses are detrimental to the stu-dent, and contribute to poor family/school rela-tionships.

Parent Responses—When parents believe the gift-ed label means gifted in all areas, they often putundue pressure on their students to achieve. If thispressure continues, the relationship between par-ent and child can suffer irreparable damage. Thestudent begins to think she can never do enough.To protect the relationship and to save face withparents, it is not unusual for students to blametheir lack of achievement on the teacher or histeaching style. The ensuing anger at the school getsthe student “off the hook” for achieving (in theshort run) but can ultimately damage the relation-ship between the family and the school.

Effects on Gifted Educators—It often becomes thejob of the gifted educator to assist all parties insorting out the issues in these situations and toanswer vital questions. Is it that the student“can’t” or “won’t” perform in a class? What is theright program or placement for the student? Howcan the relationships in the given situation beenhanced and/or repaired? What is the student’strue ability in this subject area?

Gifted educators never entertain “de-gifting” astudent as a viable solution to the problem. Butthey do often find themselves fighting an uphillbattle against negative belief systems, unrealisticexpectations, and frustrations of students, parents,and teachers. However, there are some feasibleoptions that can prevent or solve these issues withrelative ease. All it takes is a “turn of a thought,” achange of emphasis, and a reallocation ofresources.

Solutions for Consideration• Expend less time and fewer resources on identi-fication and more time on providing services andoptions, using ability to perform as the standardfor entry. Ability to perform can be measured bytests (standardized, teacher-constructed, criterionreferenced), student products, completion of pre-requisites, self-referral, and/or referral.• Conduct ongoing needs assessment about waysto provide students with appropriate opportuni-ties for rigor in the current educational setting.These needs assessments do not have to be formalin nature.• Allow students to self-select areas of independ-ent study when the size of the school does notallow for a wide choice of group instructionoptions. Train the students early in their educa-tional careers on the strategies and skills for suc-cessfully completing independent studies.• Educate all stakeholders so the label is not per-ceived nor used as the access to services andoptions in the educational setting. Have studentperformance, interest, and motivation serve as thekeys to access educational opportunities and expe-riences.• Allow students the opportunity to self-selecteducational opportunities from an early age. To dothis well, students need to know and accept theirstrengths, needs, and weaknesses.

Since we are now in the world of standards-based


Jean Strop is Counseling Coordinator and Gifted/TalentedResource Teacher at Cherry Creek High School, Colorado. She isa consultant and presenter on affective and academic programming for gifted and talented students.

Programming continued

education, gifted educators have a unique oppor-tunity to put aside labels and to use what we knowabout challenge, rigor, and personalizing the edu-cational process. Armed with our knowledge, wecan assist our colleagues in raising the bar for allstudents. It would be a much better use of humanand monetary resources to stop the ongoing andtedious meetings about “how to best identify gift-ed students,” and to assume and respond to thewise but simplistic philosophy of a popular moviecharacter, Forrest Gump. Perhaps we should sim-ply provide students with the appropriate educa-tional opportunities to demonstrate that “Gifted is,as gifted does.” ❖

To prepare for writing this column, I asked the edi-tor for some guidelines. As I studied the list shesent, it occurred to me that the work I do mightactually be construed as contributing to the entireproblem of “dumbing down” of giftedness. Let meexplain.

Since I have not, in more than 25 years in this field,been able to find a perfect identification method, Ihave concluded that identification is less impor-tant than serving the learning needs of gifted kids.One of the greatest barriers teachers face whendeciding whether or not to provide for gifted stu-dents is the fear that other students will perceivethat the teachers are setting up “unfair” condi-tions. The simplest solution to this complex dilem-ma is to make compacting and differentiationopportunities available to anyone who might ben-efit from them, whether or not that person hasbeen identified as gifted. Conversely, I believe gift-ed students should not automatically be eligiblefor compacting and differentiation unless theydemonstrate they have already mastered what willbe taught or could master the new material in ashorter time period than that needed by their agepeers.

When teachers are shown how to use an eligibilitymethod, rather than an entitlement method intheir classes, they are greatly relieved and becomemuch more open to doing what is necessary forstudents. The burden of identification and the fearof making mistakes in this area are then lifted.When I do workshops on teaching students withlearning difficulties, I use the same approach. Whylimit the number of students who can use taperecorders to listen to stories or to answer compre-hension questions? It’s much simpler to allow anystudent who so chooses to participate in this typeof learning.

Incredibly, some parents of gifted students expressdissatisfaction with these practices. They expressconcern that “gifted opportunities” should be con-fined to only those students who have beendeemed gifted by some formal identificationprocess. In some way, they may perceive that theirchild’s giftedness would be diminished if toomany students participated in extension activitiesand projects. Opening up compacting and differ-entiation options to other students is much morelikely to lead to consistently better challenges forall students who need them.

Finally, I have observed that teachers who usecompacting and differentiation as described aboveactually free themselves up to spend more timewith struggling students. Make no mistake….allthe political pressure in schools now is to bring upthe scores of low-scoring students. In the realworld, if teachers can learn how to fairly provideappropriate learning tasks that challenge their gift-ed students, they feel less guilty about spending anenormous amount of time with low achieving stu-dents. Happily, their gifted students are actuallymuch better off than when they are with teacherswho know no alternative to whole class instruc-tion. So, in this political climate, if we want ANY-THING beneficial for gifted students to happendaily in their classes, we must support this moreecumenical approach. Without it, we will watchhelplessly as the needs of our gifted kids take aback seat to the needs of low achieving students.We must do what we CAN do, and not worry somuch about what we might do. ❖

Is Dumbing Down Always a Bad Thing?

Susan Winebrenner

Susan Winebrenner, from San Marcos, California, presentsworkshops on a variety of topics, but her first love is teachinggifted children. She is the author of Teaching Gifted Students inthe Regular Classroom and Teaching Gifted Kids with LearningDisabilities in the Regular Classroom.


Computers are becoming commonplace in almostevery classroom in the United States. The increasein computer hardware has been both exciting anddisappointing. It has been disappointing becauseeducators often do not know how to use the com-puter as a tool for student learning. The computeroften becomes an Internet and email station for theteacher and/or a drill and practice vehicle for stu-dents. Even worse, the computer may become adust collector in the classroom with teachers find-ing little desire to integrate technology into theirlessons.

The software tools that adults typically use areword processing programs, spreadsheets, anddatabases. These tools are appropriate for all stu-dents to begin learning during their elementaryyears. It is how we differentiate the use of thosetools for gifted students that becomes vitallyimportant.

Gifted students, especially, need to be pushed out-side their comfort zone and presented with a littlebit of struggle for any increased learning to takeplace. Fortunately, there are models and softwarepackages that can challenge the whole classroomand provide an extra dose of critical and analyticalthinking for gifted students. Two software pack-ages—one from Tom Snyder Productions (800-342-0236/www.tomsnyder.com) and the other fromNteQ (Morrison & Louther, 2002) are good exam-ples.

Tom Snyder Productions has a history of provid-ing many unique software packages to be used asproblem-solving tools. Many of the ideas for thesoftware came right from Tom’s experience as aclassroom teacher 20 years ago. Some of the com-pany’s greatest successes are science titles, in par-ticular The Great Ocean Rescue and The Great SolarSystem Rescue.

Both of these titles came about through a partner-ship to develop materials that promote investiga-tive problem-solving and cooperative learning.They can be used with the whole class, but pre-assessments are urged to appropriately place stu-dents in groups and roles. Extension lessons andactivities are included to stretch and challenge thefast processing that is indicative of a gifted learner.

The Great Solar System Rescue supplies each studentan opportunity to become an expert (astronomer,geologist, historian, or meteorologist) as attempts

are made to rescue lost space probes in the solarsystem. Students who have advanced knowledgeof the solar system can work on a team to createtheir own mission. The activities can easily becompleted with just one computer in the class-room. The video and photograph library isimmense and can serve as a resource for addition-al research. Thinking skills are stressed throughoutthe program. I have seen students’ motivation anddesire for learning grow immensely as a result oftheir involvement with this software.

The Great Ocean Rescue is a similar title that is basedon problems facing the oceans of the world. Againthe student takes on the role of an expert (oceanog-rapher, geologist, marine biologist, or environmen-tal scientist). Many skills are used, includinganalysis, interpretation, hypotheses testing, andcollaboration. The missions have students explor-ing topics such as habitats, pollution, coral reefs,and hydrothermal vents. Lessons can be used forthe whole class or for clustered groups of giftedstudents.

Both software titles are appropriate for 5th-8thgraders, although gifted 4th graders could alsoexperience success with the missions. Additionalsoftware titles in social studies, science, and mathfrom Tom Snyder also show promise for accelerat-ed learning opportunities with high-ability stu-dents at all grade levels.

The NteQ model (www.nteq.com) is an inquiry-based model that starts by specifying a problemthat students are to solve. The problem can comefrom any content area, but typically the solutionwill come about by using one or all of the essentialcomputer software tools: word processing, data-base, and/or spreadsheet.

For example, a 6th-grade lesson may have stu-dents explore how to spend a family food budgetwith a certain number of coupons and discountsallowed. Students must analyze advertisementsfrom different grocery stores and then presenttheir comparison and analysis in a spreadsheetusing proper formulas for percent off and totals.Differentiation can occur by varying the complexi-ty of the assignment with more advanced formulasand/or more open-ended budget scenarios.

Typical lessons will also include activities that areto be carried out prior to and after regular com-puter work. Rubrics are included and used forevaluation of the end product. Additional materi-als called “Think Sheets” encourage students tothink critically about what they have learned sothat they can be assured about what they know,understand, and are able to do as a result of the les-son.

The NTeQ model is new enough that we are onlyjust beginning to see some solid examples on theInternet. The model is appropriate for all gradelevels and can really ratchet up learning and think-ing skills of all students.

Software UpdatesSoftware as a

Lifelong Tool forLearning

Gregory C. Pattridge


The full promise of the computer as a tool for life-long learning has not been fulfilled. Training forteachers, budgets for software, and integration ofthe computer in all phases of the curriculum areimportant components to make this a reality.

Reference

Morrison, G.R. & Louther, D.L. (2002). Integrating ComputerTechnology into the Classroom . Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.

Gregory C. Pattridge is a resource instructor and staff devel-oper with Intervention Services/Jefferson County Public Schools,Colorado. He teaches nationally for Lesley College and Universityof Phoenix and is a frequent consultant for gifted and technologyeducation.

Software continued

The BookshelfYoung People with Abilities

Bordering on the Supernatural

Suzy Schettler

The following books all have one thing in com-mon—they are all about gifted young people.These young people are not gifted in the tradition-al sense, but they do have unique abilities—abili-ties that border on the supernatural. They alsohave something in common with the more tradi-tional gifted child—their feelings of being differentthan most and the isolation and loneliness that thatsometimes brings, not to mention the envy, mis-trust, and fear that others may have towards suchextraordinary abilities.

Having such special abilities may seem like a won-drous thing, but outsiders may try to use such tal-ents to their own advantage—especially abilitiesthat cross over into extra-sensory arenas. The abil-ity to be able to read other people’s minds couldprovide an incredible advantage to governmentsand other organizations looking for an edge.

The books below all deal with these very compli-cated issues. They fall in the late middle-reader toyoung adult/teen camp, with coming-of-ageissues, including falling in love.

Dr. Chill’s Project by Thomas Hoobler (1987, G.P.Putnam Sons) is an older book and won’t likely befound in any bookstore. Best bets would be locallibraries or inter-library loans.

Fifteen-year-old Allie is brought together with fourother young people with extrasensory powers totake part in a secret project sponsored by the mys-

terious Dr. Chill. At first the group home, with itsfriendly inhabitants, seems like a dream come trueto Allie, who has been bounced from institution toinstitution. For as long as she can remember, Alliehas wanted to be like other kids and suddenly shefinds herself with other young people who all have“a special“ as they call it amongst themselves. Atfirst Dr. Chill seems to understand how hard it isbeing different. He tells Allie, “When people likeyou turn up, the rest of us get very upset. You‘redifferent, and we don‘t like that. So we try to makeyou like us. Nobody really knows how many oth-ers like you succeed in becoming…just like every-body else. That‘s what people like me usually tryto help you do.” But in response to his question,“Do you want to be just like everybody else?” Alliediscovers that while a part of her wants to say yes,another part of her doesn’t, and he seems toadmire that, all the while telling her how muchshe’s wanted as part of their group just for whoshe is.

Allie learns about the other kids. Rose can readminds and can sense things that are going to hap-pen. Rose becomes a friend who begins to showAllie that these powers aren’t evil, and that there isno need to fear them. Jay has an affinity withnumbers and machines. Timmy won’t speak andin many ways seems underdeveloped, but hismind has such special abilities that even within thegroup he is considered extraordinary. Lew seemsto understand them all so well.

Little by little, Allie begins to realize that thingsaren‘t quite what they seem, and that somethingabout Dr. Chill’s home for the “gifted ” doesn’tseem quite right. There is a strange man who fol-lows them and silently watches their experiments.Then suddenly, one of them is kidnapped, andthey have to use their abilities together to solve theproblem.

This book deals with issues of friendship, self-acceptance, and how adults may try to manipulatetalented young minds for their own use, beginningwith Rose’s father who wants her to predict whowill win the next ballgame so he can bet on it.While gifted children will not have the types ofsupernatural abilities of the characters portrayedin the story, many will be able to relate to feelingpressure from others. Self-acceptance and trust inthe face of such manipulations can be difficult,especially during the teen years when children aretrying to discover who they really are and whatthey want for themselves. This book does an excel-lent job of showing that love and friendship arewhat count the most.

The Strange Power by L. J.Smith (1994, ArchwayPocket Books) is the first book in the Dark Visionstrilogy. Like Dr. Chill‘s Project, it’s another storyabout a group of teens with special gifts. In thisbook the teens are gathered at a special placecalled the Zetes Institute. These children have evenmore unusual abilities than the characters por-trayed in the Hoobler book. One girl can commu-nicate with animals, and another has mysterioushealing abilities. Kaitlyn Fairchild, the main char-acter of the novel, has prophetic visions.


Suzy Schettler, from Ontario, Canada, is the mother of twogifted sons.

Unfortunately, she can‘t control when they willoccur or understand what they will beabout––something she finds incredibly frustratingbecause it prevents her from being able to stoptragic events and save innocent lives. Then oneday the Zetes Institute offers her not only a “schol-arship to the college of her choice,” but a chance tolearn how to control and understand her powers.In return Kaitlyn is expected to live at the Institutefor her senior year of high school along with fourother students, all with special talents. Her part ofthe bargain is that she allows her abilities to bestudied and tested. She’s told that she’ll “be help-ing the cause of science” and that she’ll be able tolearn more about her gift, maybe learn to control itso that it could help people. She’s also told that “inthe entire world, there are only a handful of peo-ple” who have abilities like hers, and that in theentire United States, they could find only fiveother kids besides herself—all with slightly differ-ent, extraordinary abilities—to take part in thestudy.

Kaitlyn learns that the Zetes Institute is a smalllaboratory established by a research grant, cour-tesy of the Zetes Foundation. Mr. Zetes is not onlythe chairman of a big corporation in Silicon Valley,but a man with intense interest in psychic phe-nomenon. In fact, it was Zetes himself whobroached the idea of creating the Institute, search-ing the country for teens with psychic abilities andgathering them for testing and research. Onlyteens with the strongest and most unique abilities,the “cream of the crop,” are invited. Kaitlyn can’thelp but be tempted, not only by the chance tounderstand and possibly learn to control her abili-ties, but to be together with others who know whatit’s like to live with a special gift and how isolatingand difficult it can be.

What Kaitlyn finds, however, is that the Institutemay not be as harmless as it seems. The mysteriousMr. Zetes may have a hidden agenda that has lessto do with science and more to do with madness.The teens find that they need to put their personaldifferences and hostilities aside and work togetherto get to the truth, accepting themselves and learn-ing to trust each other along the way.

The second book in the trilogy is The Possessed(1995, Archway Pocket Books). It follows the fivefriends as they are drawn to a mysterious whitehouse. In The Passion (1997, Archway PocketBooks), the author drives the story to its climax,providing lots of suspense, romance, mystery, andhorror along the way. ❖

Bookshelf continued

As a parent you have probably read hundreds ofbooks aloud to your child. Even though your childhas now learned to read, it is still very important tocontinue the process of reading aloud. The Centerfor the Study of Reading stated in Becoming aNation of Readers: Report of the Commission onReading (1985), “The single most important activi-ty for building the knowledge required for eventu-al success in reading is reading aloud to children.”

The benefits of your reading aloud include 1. helping your child to become a good listenerand a person who can share the stage with others 2. increasing critical thinking skills by discussingand questioning the material that is read 3. sharing thoughts and ideas 4. improving vocabulary 5. increasing your child’s exposure to a widevariety of authors and types of reading material

Reading aloud to children often begins at an earlyage, but can reap continued benefits as your childadvances in age.

Suggested Lists of Reading MaterialAmerican Library Association list of NewberyAward winners www.ala.org/alsc/newbery.html

American Library Association list of Caldecottwinnerswww.ala.org/alsc/caldecott.html

KidsReads Classics Listswww.kidsreads.com/lists/classic-lists.asp

KidsSource Classics Listshttp://www.kidsource.com/kidsource/content/timeless.html

Jill F. VonGruben is a parent of two gifted young women and aparent advocate for gifted education. She is the author of CollegeCountdown: The Parent’s and Student’s Survival Kit for theCollege Admissions Process and the Web site www.collegecountdownkit.com

ParentSpaceThe Value of Reading Together

Long After Children Are Able toRead to Themselves

Jill F. VonGruben

pen Space Communications

Alexinia BaldwinProfessorUniversity of Connecticut

Sandra BergerERIC Clearinghouse-Disabilities/GiftedCouncil for Exceptional Children, VA

Ernesto BernalEducational ConsultantVice President, San Antonio Gifted EducationFoundation, TX

George BettsProfessor of Special EducationGifted and Talented University of Northern Colorado

Barbara ClarkProfessorCalifornia State University

LeoNora CohenAssociate ProfessorOregon State University

James DelisleProfessorCo-Director, SENGKent State University, OH

John FeldhusenProfessorPurdue University, IN

Maurice D. FisherPublisherGifted Education Press, VA

Jerry FlackProfessor EmeritusUniversity of Colorado,Colorado Springs

Laura GoodmanConsultant & WriterBoulder, CO

Julie GonzalesEducational Consultant/Advocate, CO

Miraca GrossProfessor, Gifted EducationDirector, Gifted Education Research, Resource,and Information CentreUniversity of New South Wales, Australia

Pat HollingsworthUniversity School for Gifted ChildrenUniversity of Tulsa, OK

Frances A. KarnesProfessor, Special EducationDirector, Karnes Center for Gifted StudiesUniversity of Southern Mississippi

Elinor KatzAssociate ProfessorEducational LeadershipUniversity of Denver

Bertie KingoreProfessional Associates Publishing, TX

C. June MakerAssociate ProfessorUniversity of Arizona

Joel McIntoshPublisherPrufrock Press, TX

Garnet MillarProvincial Coordinator Guidance & CounselingAlberta Education, Canada

Sheri NowakCoordinator, Enrichment ServicesBlue Valley School DistrictOverland Park, KS

Rick OlenchakProfessor, Psychologist, DirectorUrban Talent Research InstituteUniversity of Houston, TX

Jeanette P. ParkerDirector, Center for Gifted EducationUniversity of Southwestern Louisiana,Lafayette

Ann RobinsonProfessorUniversity of Arkansas at Little Rock

Mark RuncoCalifornia State University, FullertonUniversity of Hawaii, Hilo

Ellie SchatzPresidentWisconsin Center for Academically Talented Youth

Beverly ShakleeProfessorGeorge Mason University, VA

Dorothy SiskDirector, Conn Chair for Gifted EducationLamar University, TX

Joan Franklin SmutnyDirector, Center for GiftedNational-Louis University, IL

Stuart A. TonemahPresidentAmerican Indian Research & Development, OK

E. Paul TorranceGeorgia Studies of Creative Behavior

Joyce VanTassel-BaskaProfessorCollege of William & Mary, VA

Sally WalkerExecutive DirectorIllinois Association for Gifted Children

Marilyn WallaceAcademic DirectorQuest Academy, IL

Susan WinebrennerEducation Consulting Service, CA

Editorial Advisory Board

Understanding Our Gifted (ISSN 1040-1350) is published quarterly by Open Space Communications, P.O. Box 18268, Boulder, CO 80308. Subscriptionsare $37 for 1 year: Institutions $49. International subscriptions are $58 U.S. funds; International Institutions $68. Online edition and back issues available. Thirdclass postage paid at Boulder, CO. For subscription address changes, send mailing label along with new address to Understanding Our Gifted eight weeksbefore moving. Material in Understanding Our Gifted can be copied for personal use only. No material can be reproduced for publication without permission.Appropriate credit must be given. Copyright 2003, Open Space Communications. All rights reserved. Indexed and abstracted in Current Index to Journals inEducation (CIJE), Exceptional Child Educational Resource (ECER) database, and Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) Clearinghouse onHandicapped and Gifted Children. (303)444-7020/ FAX(303)545-6505/ 800-494-6178. [email protected] www.openspacecomm.com www.our-gifted.com

PublisherDorothy Knopper

EditorCarol Fertig

Design/Desktop PublishingAnn Alexander Leggett

Editorial AssistanceJoan Franklin Smutny

Understanding Our Gifted encourages a wide rangeof viewpoints on education and the gifted. Authorshave the flexibility to express individual opinions,which are not necessarily those of the Editor,Publisher, or Editorial Advisory Board. We welcomereader feedback.

Order Form○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

Understanding Our Gifted Back IssuesVolume 4 q $8 eachq 4-1 Student Researchq 4-2 Technology and Educationq 4-3 Empowering Parentsq 4-4 Assessing the Giftedq 4-5 Collaborative Effortsq 4-6 Family RelationshipsVolume 5 q $8 eachq 5-1 Homeschoolingq 5-2 Promising Practicesq 5-3 Parent Advocacyq 5-5 Young Gifted Childq 5-5A Being Out of Syncq 5-6 Philosophy of GiftednessVolume 6 q $8 eachq 6-1 Valuing Parentsq 6-2 Excellence Revisitedq 6-3 Networkingq 6-4 Talent Searchesq 6-5 Attention Deficit Disordersq 6-6 MainstreamingVolume 7 q $8 eachq 7-1 Spectrum of Giftednessq 7-2 Update On Technologyq 7-3 Recognizing Gifted Childrenq 7-4 Secondary Gifted Studentsq 7-5 Exploring Creativityq 7-6 Mutual EducationVolume 8 q $8 eachq 8-1 Multicultural Issuesq 8-2 Gifted Students - Upper Elem./Middleq 8-3 The Visual Learnerq 8-4 Parenting & Teaching Gifted Childrenq 8-5 Global Connections for Gifted Studentsq 8-6 Affective Needs

Volume 9 q $14 eachq 9-1 Perfectionismq 9-2 Gifted Ed. & the Lawq 9-3 Inside Giftednessq 9-4 Learning DifferencesVolume 10 q $14 eachq 10-1 Educational Optionsq 10-2 Intelligence Revisitedq 10-3 Parenting & Advocacyq 10-4 CurriculumVolume 11 q $14 eachq 11-1 The Total Childq 11-2 Gifted Girlsq 11-3 Asynchronyq 11-4 Teaching TeachersVolume 12 q $14 eachq 12-1 Millenniumq 12-2 Levels of Giftednessq 12-3 Technologyq 12-4 Nature vs. NurtureVolume 13 q $14 eachq 13-1 Definitions of Giftednessq 13-2 Addressing Giftednessq 13-3 The “G” Wordq 13-4 CreativityVolume 14 q $16 eachq 14-1 Options in Educationq 14-2 Twice Exceptionalq 14-3 Social/Emotionalq 14-4 Critical ThinkingVolume 15 q $16 eachq 15-1 Differentiation

Leading Journal Since 1988

Understanding Our Gifted Subscription - Published Quarterly

SAVE - ONLINE SUB - $32 Individual/$46 Institution Online $________(Institutions - up to 5 subscribers - $99) $________PRINT SUB U.S. $37 Individual-$49 Institution Print $________International $58 Individual-$68 Institution U.S. Funds Print $________Back Issues Vol. 4-8 $8 each/Vol. 9-13 $14 each/Vol.14-15 $16 $________International Vol. 4-8 $15 each/Vol. 9-13 $20 each/Vol.14-15 $25 U.S. $__________Special Back Issue Offer thru May 30, 2003 - Check Issues above $________

Professional Development Series Books__ Affective Education $14.25 $__________ Parent Education $14.25 ___Spanish Version $10 $__________ Teens With Talent $15.45 $__________ Smarter Kids $15.45 ___All 4 Books SPECIAL $49.95 $________

Audio Tapes__ Giftedness & the Visual Learner-Freed $10 $__________ Social/Emotional-Betts/ADD-Dorry $10 $__________ Perfectionism-Fertig $10 $__________ Underserved Gifted-Smutny $10 $__________ Learning Styles/ADD-Freed $15 _Special Both Freed Tapes $20 $__________G/T & CSAP: Succeeding at Both-Scott Plus side 2: Underserved Gifted-Smutny $12 $________

Shipping/Handling $________U.S.: 10%-$5 minimum /Canada: 20%-$10 minimum (all publications)

All other countries: 20%-$25 minimum (all publications)

Total Enclosed U.S. Funds $________

Name

Institution

Address

City

State or Province

Zip or Postal Code

Country

E-mail

VISA/MasterCard #

Expiration

P.O. #

Mail to: Open Space CommunicationsP.O. Box 18268, Boulder, CO 80308

Place your order on our web:www.openspacecomm.com

REQUIRED FOR ONLINE SUBSCRIPTIONS

800-494-6178 / Fax 303-545-6505

Add Shipping/HandlingSee Order

Form Call for special Out-Of-Print pricing -

Volumes 1-3800-494-6178

SPECIAL - SAVE Back Issue Discounts:

#1-VOLUMES 4-8$2.50 each

(8 issue minimum)

#2-VOLUMES 9-12$5.50 each

(4 issue minimum)

Subscribe to OnlineUnderstanding Our Gifted at

www.our-gifted.com

Offer Good thru May 30, 2003

pen Space CommunicationsP.O. Box 18268Boulder, CO 80308

Log-on totheInternetanywhere,anytimeto read. . .

Understanding Our Gifted

SUBSCRIBE NOWAND SAVE!

UnderstandingOur Gifted

Two Back Issue Discounts:

#1- VOLUMES 4-8 $2.50 each (8 issueminimum)

#2- VOLUMES 9-12 $5.50 each (4 issueminimum)

MORE SPECIALOFFERS

Visit our Web Sitewww.openspacecomm.com

issue focus: dumbing down of giftednessourgifted.com/journals/uog15-2.pdf · “dumbing down” of...

Documents