* The following was an email that I sent to the co-worker at my school in regards to the video she sent me. After I wrote the email, I decided it would be a great entry for my blog. Enjoy!

Hi Mary Grace,
I wanted to let you know of the effect that the video you sent http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r43yCiKlbCo had on the children. I showed about the first 2-3 minutes of class to the students and said that I was ‘advertising for the Nat. Geo Bee. As I watched them watch the video, their faces were all smiles and they were visibly impressed. I got 4-6 more students to sign up for the Bee before the day was done.

The best thing, though, was the social/emotional talk we had after. Our discussion included points like these:

The little girl was gifted spatially, she was highly interested in the activity, she kept coming back for more and her parents let her have more.

We’re not all gifted at everything and that’s ok. Gifted kids are sometimes “out of balance”, really smart about some stuff and not so smart about others.

Even though she was very good at what she was doing, she still needed to wiggle and dance and receive encourage from others (and she still wore diapers). She was developmentally still a 2 year old.

We also noticed that the video was on a site whose name looked Swedish or Dutch so we decided that there must be lots of kids that are gifted that live around the world.

And, lastly, they were so lucky to be at a school that lets them be gifted and kids.

So, thanks for sending the video on! You just never know where stuff like that will go!
Angie

I am in the process of trying something that is really a cross between curriculums in my classroom of 8-ish to 10-ish year old students. Our school is performing the Walt Disney version of The Jungle Book for the school wide play so I thought this was a natural jumping off point to study the classic writer, Rudyard Kipling. I remembered teaching “Tiger, Tiger” and “Mowgli’s Brother” from the Junior Great Book series while teaching in Louisiana. After a bit of rummaging in the school’s library, I located the teacher’s guides for those two stories and two other stories from The Second Jungle Book., “Letting in the Jungle” and “The Spring Running.” You can easily do a search for online text versions and even audio versions of both books.

In my mind, this looked like a perfect opportunity to put literary circles together for my 12 intermediate students using the four stories. I set up four folders with directions on how to use post-its, the Directed Notes page, a few interpretive questions, a Kipling excerpt learning experience and a creative analysis activity. I used the assignment sheet format breaking down the learning experiences, roughly, into the Bloom’s Taxonomy levels. In the usual layered assignment that I’ve done in the past, I gave the students more choices in each layer but this time, I had an ulterior motive: a grand timeline combining events all four stories together.

The students first response to my question of, “Have you ever done literary circles?” found that most were not sure what those were or if they had participated in one. After our short discussion, it appears that some had experienced a similar set up, somewhere in their past. The students in each group were chosen based on several factors 1) experience with interpretating text, 2) reading comprehension skill level 3) leadership skills 4) interest level and lastly, who was present in class that day.

The students started reading or re-reading their text looking for information to support their directed notes last Thursday. I expected a novelty response on using the post-it notes, so I cut up as many as they requested. Amazingly, one group used more notes than any other (and it was not the group that I expected.)

We are at the point where the students are ready to move to the interpretative question and exploring Kipling as a writer learning experience. (I will write down the name of the book where I obtained the activity the next time I am at school.) The students continue to be interested in the unit, which may be a direct result of the play coming down to the last week of practice before going on stage. As you can imagine, the students are making comments like, “Why did Disney write out Akela and what about Shere Khan’s lame paw and why Bagheera supports and teaches Mowgli.” They are paying careful attention to detail!

I will let you know how the unit progress. I know there will be pitfalls, gaps, strong characteristics, appealing or non-interesting learning experiences. It will be interesting to see what works well and what doesn’t.

I just read through Prufrock Press’s monthly e-newsletter. One headline addressed the affects of NCLB on the gifted student. “The law is causing many concerned parents [of gifted children] to abandon public schools … These parents are fleeing public schools not only because, as documented by a recent University of Chicago study, the act pushes teachers to ignore high-ability students through its exclusive focus on bringing students to minimum proficiency. Worse than this benign neglect, No Child forces a fundamental educational approach so inappropriate for high-ability students that it destroys their interest in learning, as school becomes an endless chain of basic lessons aimed at low-performing students.”

As I scanned through the abstract, it reminded me of a discussion I had with Dr. Palka who taught all but one of my gifted courses required for my option in Gifted Education. Our discussion took place probably 6-7 years ago. She talked about how NCLB was going to deeply affect the gifted children in the nation. She explained how the money that was set aside for educating the gifted child would be re allocated to the low and middle learners. She had been a gifted teacher for a number of years, then a director at the state level in Ohio for their gifted program before coming to SLU. I figured she knew what she was talking about.

Well, she was right. It took a few years for the effects to ‘sink’ in. The effects are printed in this study and many other articles include the recent one in Newsweek that I have already written a blog about. The effects are felt in the discussions I have with parents, educators and supporters (online and in real life).

Time marches on, parents still look for the best place to educate their child (gifted or not). Decisions related to NCLB made 6-7 years ago will still ripple through our society for years. Remember when President Kennedy wanted the US to lead the way in Science? Those students who benefited from his objectives are now today’s parents. They are acting. They are searching for the best possible place/way to educate their child. Duh!

Interesting, isn’t it?

I have had many friends and acquaintances ask just what is meant by ‘gifted’ or ‘giftedness’. I’ve been impressed by the two blog entries done by Ms. Fisher through EdWeek. Her explanations are clear and precise. I hope you enjoy reading her entries. I want to quote her last post here in case you don’t have time to visit her web log. If you do have time, you can find her site by following this link: http://blogs.edweek.org/teachers/unwrapping_the_gifted/2007/08/its_a_learning_difference_3.html

Here is her latest post:
”
Posted: 22 Aug 2007 07:36 PM CDT

Wow… Thank you to everyone for such a great response to my first post on this blog (“My Yard is Gifted”). I’m thrilled to have this opportunity to get everyone talking about the issue of gifted education and – most importantly – the gifted kids in our classrooms and how to best meet their needs. While I already had many ideas for future posts before you all responded, I now have doubled my list just based on your comments/requests thus far. I shouldn’t have any trouble filling a year’s worth of blogging ;o)

In an ideal world, I would respond to each comment posted, but given that I have two jobs beyond this one and – hopefully – another life beyond “work,” it will not always be possible for me to do so. I will be able to cover many requests for information/ideas in future posts (for example: gifted programs on Indian Reservations, boredom, LD/Gifted, elitism, alternative schooling options for gifted kids, differentiation, etc.) So if you made a request (intentionally or unintentionally!) that I think many others would also be interested in reading and thinking about, stay tuned because I will do my best to get to those topics (and many others) this year.

But first, it’s pretty clear that I need to cover that loaded word “gifted!”

When it comes to “labeling” some kids as “gifted,” a variety of emotions, viewpoints, past baggage, interpretations, and misinterpretations get stirred up. Just reading everyone’s comments to my first post can give a pretty good picture of this variety. Having been in the field of gifted education for many years now, I’ve seen and heard it all. So, for the sake of clarifying just what I mean when I use that term here (and of course to get y’all thinking!), this post is dedicated to semantics.

The term “gifted” has been in use in the education field since Leta Hollingworth wrote “Gifted Children: Their Nature and Nurture” in 1926. Prior to that, it was a term used in a somewhat similar context by Francis Galton in 1869. Over the years, it has become the word we most commonly use to refer to those individuals who are, in some way, markedly different (advanced) in their abilities in a particular area. Maybe it’s not the best word to use (due to the misinterpretations and angst that come with it), but, like it or not, that is the term that has risen to the surface. Some schools do use alternative terms, like “highly capable,” “advanced,” “accelerated,” or “high ability” (among others). But really, even with those, the same issues still exist. (Some people object to “high ability,” for example, because they say it implies that other kids are “low ability.”) Whatever the term used is, we’re all referring to an individual with a rare set of abilities. [“What’s in a name? That which we call a rose/By any other name would smell as sweet.” William Shakespeare] I don’t have any problems using the term “gifted” because of the context in which I (and most in my field) use it and think of it. Knowing that I’m venturing into potentially hostile territory, I hope to outline my thinking on the term here…

“Gifted” does not equal “special.” Yet that is how many people interpret and use the term. [i.e. “all kids are gifted”] Every child ever born (and not born) is special. Every child brought into our world has something special to offer the world. Even after billions and billions of people have stepped foot on Earth, we each remain unique from one another (amazing, isn’t it?!). Specialness is inherent in our humanness. Let’s marvel in and celebrate the specialness of every child and of each other. [Yes, I know “specialness” is not really word, but it fits what I mean and I like to invent words :o) ]

When I, and others, use the term “gifted,” we are not trying to imply that some children are more special than others are. We are not saying that “my students” or “my children” are “more special than yours.” They’re not more special. Everyone is special in his or her own way. All children are special.

But giftedness is not specialness.

And all children are not gifted. Beyond my specialness argument, perhaps this will help:

Are all children tall? Are all children short? Are all children hearing impaired? [thanks for the example, Jill Carroll] Are all children blind? Are all children athletic? Are all children musical? Are all children artistic? Are all children brown-eyed? Are all children ten-fingered?

No.

Are all children marvelous? Are all children beautiful? Are all children amazing? Are all children special? Are all children inspiring? Are all children unique? Are all children full of potential and possibilities?

Yes. Of course!

The term “gifted” as used in the field of gifted education belongs in the same group as the terms in the first set of questions. We do not mean, intend, or use it in the context that would place it as belonging with the second group of questions.

Perhaps this underlies the misinterpretation that has haunted the word for all these years. Perhaps we in the field haven’t done a good enough job of clarifying to which group the word belongs.

“Gifted” belongs in the first set because it is the term used to acknowledge that there are some among us who are markedly different intellectually. Are there some among us who are significantly taller than the rest of us? Are there some among us who are significantly shorter than the rest of us? Are there some among us who are markedly more athletic, markedly more musical, markedly more artistic than the rest of us? We can relatively easily acknowledge that yes, there are. But when it comes to acknowledging that some among us are markedly different intellectually, we stammer and “well, but” and hedge. Because we’re still stuck on “special.” [There’s a great post here (“Failing Our Geniuses”) that talks about our struggle with egalitarianism and giftedness.]

Giftedness is a learning difference. “Gifted,” as used in the field of gifted education, does not mean “having a gift.” Rather, it means that there’s a significant learning difference present in that individual. Everyone has gifts – that something special we each can offer the world – but not everyone learns as a gifted child learns. [Those of you who are really into this will tell me that that’s technically what Galton meant – having a gift – and that giftedness is the presence of a gift, and I do see that point, but for the sake of those who are still stuck on special, can you see the distinction I’m trying to lay out for them? Thank you :o) ]

For those who need a specific example: All children can learn their multiplication tables. Most learn them around third grade and master them by 4th or 5th or 6th grade (hopefully!) But it is the gifted child, who at age 3 or 4 or 5, intuitively develops an understanding of multiples and “discovers” (or figures out) multiplication all on her own. All children can learn to read. Most learn their letters in Kindergarten and begin reading simple books in 1st grade, progressing from there. But it is the gifted child, who at age 3 or 4 or 5, somehow just begins reading without having ever really been “taught” how to do so.

(Disclaimer: Those examples do not apply to all gifted children all of the time! I use them here to help make my point.)

“Gifted” is the term we use to refer to those children whose learning is dramatically different. Yes, if you get right down to it, we all do learn a bit differently from each other, gifted or not (“learning styles,” if you will). But we’re talking here about the significant differences that set these kids apart. They can learn two (or more!) years’ worth of Math in one year. They can read as well as children eight years older than they are. They have built their own science laboratories in the basements of their homes. They use words most adults have to look up in the dictionary. They can spell words most adults have never even heard of! These kids are out there… possibly in your classroom… And they ARE different! The word we use to refer to them just happens to be “gifted.”

[Another side note for those of you who are really into this: I know “giftedness” is more complex than just being a learning difference. But stick with me! I can’t write the whole book in one post ;o) Hopefully, through the course of this year, the complexities will become more apparent for those who are coming here to learn them.]

A final note: I think it’s VERY important that we have this discussion with our kids, too… the gifted ones and the non-gifted ones. And certainly with all of the special ones ;o) As a matter of fact, I discuss this very issue with my students beginning when they are very young. [I tell them, “You know how some kids go to work with Mrs. Zupinsky? And other kids go to work with Mr. Holt? Well, those teachers know special ways to teach and help those kids because they learn differently. And it’s the same here. You learn differently (usually faster), and I know special ways to help and to challenge kids who learn like that.” (The discussion evolves as they get older).] They WANT to talk about this. “Why am I in here?” “What does gifted mean?” They sense the elitism [will cover that topic in more depth in a future post] that many seem to assign to the term “gifted”… this term that has been applied to them. The perspective outlined in this post is a refreshing one for them. It helps them to accept and explain themselves. It helps them to realize that “gifted” isn’t elitism or “more special,” it’s just a different way of learning, it’s just a piece of who they are.”

I have a teaching job for the fall. I have one full week and a weekend to prepare to teach two classes totaling 27 students between the ages 7 and 13. Since it is at a school which serves the gifted population, the regular grading schematic doesn’t quite apply. I’m excited, yet fully aware of the amount of work I must do during the next week to prepare for their first day of school on Aug. 27, 2007. I appreciate the administration and board for thinking that I am ‘up to the task’ and a husband who is cheering me on. Here goes!

I have invited Zen to be a contributing writer to my Incitement 2007 – Young Writers’ Page. Zen is a homeschooled gifted 14 year old that comes to the site through a mailing list designed just for families who are homeschooling in the Houston area. Please take a moment to visit her first posting. I expect that she will be submitting creative writing in the near future.

If you are interested in ‘infusing your creative thoughts into the world’ and you are a young writer, email me at teachagiftedkid@gmail.com about your intentions.

I enrolled my two children in a gifted program (daughter as a 1st grader, son as a 5th grader). As a parent, I saw their scores but had no information to compare it to. I just thought they were pretty smart. Then I received training as a gifted teacher when my daughter was in junior high and that’s where I learned that my own children were at the moderately gifted level. When I got a gifted teaching job, I reviewed all my students files to find that most of them were also at the moderately gifted level.

From my experience, I would imagine that most gifted programs in a public school situation are at that level. If my children tested higher, I would’ve never known as a parent. However, I was totally keyed into their social and emotional issues. Were they happy, were they making friends, did they want to go to school, etc., etc. Having gifted children is not all about academic challenge – raising well balanced, inquisitive, independent learners who can function in society is. Raising children who can rise above difficult circumstances, learn to adapt and use their experience to help others through difficult times is also important. If you haven’t had the chance to look at this website, please do: http://crab.rutgers.edu/~goertzel/cradles.htm Not every gifted individual throughout history had a perfect childhood! After I read the book, I gave myself breathing room to let my children struggle (some) without feeling guilty. Maybe it will do the same for you.

It’s common knowledge with those in the field of educating the gifted, that the No Child Left Behind laws have been a detriment to educating this unique population. NCLB is great at meeting the needs of those at, just below or just above the standards laid out but those very low or very high are ‘left behind’. I was glad to see that our researchers are looking into this perception to see if it can stand up under scrutiny. The short article has links to the actual 41 page study. http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/NCLB-ActII/2007/07/bubble_kids_benefit.html

Gifted and High Achievers in the same ‘gifted’ classroom? My husband had a discussion today with a coworker. Most of his coworkers know that I’m a certified teacher with training in teaching gifted. Sometimes this brings up interesting discussions at his work. Today’s discussion was with a single mom who had been doing her research. She said the school officials wanted to put her daughter in a gifted class at the age of 7 or 8 years old but the daughter had not tested gifted – she was a ‘high achiever’.

What the coworker discovered was that high achieving students do quite well with the gifted student up to about grade 5. Then a wide gap in processing and thinking becomes noticeable to the students. The high achiever losses confidence at about this age for a number of reasons but to add the fact that ‘you used to be smart’ when compared to others in an ‘elite’ class can do some serious damage to a young person’s academic confidence. It becomes even more complex if the parent has talked up having their child in a gifted program.

My husband’s coworker really feels strongly that there should be classes for the high achievers but she felt that clumping them with the gifted may not be the answer. There are several school districts in the area that have adopted this strategy. Through my professional training, I was encouraged to locate and read research from both sides of an issue before making a decision regarding the education of any child. I would hope that these school districts have done their research.

I’m always impressed with parents who spend the time really digging through the complex issues of rearing a gifted child or any child for that matter. We all want to do our best for our children. I’ve listed several great sites on my “For Gifted Minds: Parents & Teachers” link to start researching the difference between a high achieving student (which the world truly needs) and the gifted child (which the world truly needs) and begin educating them appropriately.