Is Gifted Education Worth It? Who Should We Ask?

Questions about the value of gifted education have seen a lot of recent attention in the news recently. This recent contribution to the conversation stands out for me because of the gaps in logic:

Four gifted writers share doubts about gifted education - http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/four-gifted-writers-share-doubts-about-gifted-education/2014/06/14/ec8f2228-f31a-11e3-9ebc-2ee6f81ed217_story.html

A few thoughts in response:

1. Gifted doesn't just mean good at what they do or creative. The proliferation of definitions makes this difficult to discern, I understand.

2. Not only is your sample one of convenience, you've asked people who were never formally identified as gifted what they think of the formal program that they didn't participate in (save one).

3. Gifted education advocates that I know would not disagree with the assertion that gifted children would benefit from the opportunity to explore their interests rather than a highly-structured curriculum.

A better piece might first take a critical look at the definition of giftedness. There are certainly lots of opportunities to poke holes in gifted education just because of the proliferation of definitions and the curricula developed (and sold) to support them.

Next, a better piece might ask gifted persons who were part of a GT curriculum what worked and what didn't. It might ask those that weren't identified for their perspective from the outside looking in.

Lastly, a better piece might take a closer look at what is actually advocated by scholars in gifted education, rather than punching a straw man argument.

Maybe someday I'll have the time and opportunity to write that better piece. For now, this critical response will have to do.

The Right Word

The following is a modified version of the comment I posted on Stephanie Tolan's post, "Are We Redefining the Wrong Word?"

There is so much that is right on point in this article that I don't know where to start. I'm so happy that the "Honors Education" group on Facebook shared it and that I saw it.

First, I understand and appreciate the need for a different word than "gifted," especially since it gives a lot of people a way to dismiss gifted persons' needs because they'll take care of themselves. My skin crawled to read that "Talent Development" was what was suggested, though, because it seems to dehumanize the person in favor of what they might be developed into...or what they will offer to society. The first time I realized this was reading James Borland's chapter in Conceptions of Giftedness titled "Gifted Education Without Gifted Children: The Case for No Conception of Giftedness." While I differ in opinion from Borland in that I think that giftedness is more than a chimera (I do not disagree that the construct, as it has been applied is flawed), I really like his focus on providing an appropriate education for all learners.

While I try to avoid deficit models whenever possible, Michael Rios' characterization of giftedness as "asynchronous development syndrome" (Understanding Our Gifted, 1999) is probably the best example I've seen of creating a term that understands giftedness as psychological difference (ala the Columbus Group definition) and communicates that the difference doesn't necessarily make the person better.

I also love the idea of reinforcing the idea that learning ought to be a lifelong endeavor. I work in a university environment and feel like I'm fighting a losing battle sometimes to encourage us to operate as a learning organization. Learning is messy sometimes and doesn't necessarily fit a business model.

Kudos, as well, to the young person who advocated for membership in NAGC. While we're asking questions about re-definition, how about an NAGP: National Association of Gifted Persons? Focusing on giftedness in children plays into a talent development paradigm where the push is to focus resources on developing a person's potential in enough time that they can make significant contributions to society. Broadening the scope of the organization would not, I hope, diminish the need for developmentally-appropriate education at all levels, but it might create some room for more research and understanding of giftedness as a lifelong phenomenon, which seems likely if it truly is a psychological difference.

To Be, or Not To Be

I'm having an epistemological, ontological, existential crisis with regard to my doctoral program. In a recent course geared toward helping students prepare our dissertation proposals, I discovered a huge gap in my education.

The opening essay to Conceptions of Giftedness, by James Borland, makes a compelling case for dismissing with the notion of defining giftedness. My very first reaction was a feeling of validation since I found correspondence between Borland's points and some ideas I had been developing independently since my introduction to the field. One such issue is the need for an umbrella term to describe giftedness and retardation (my suggestion is lamentably uninspired: "differently abled"). I suggested the need for such a term since there seems to be some emotional baggage attached to the term "gifted" that leads some administrators and teachers to believe that gifted students will fend for themselves in an average educational setting. The other point of correspondence that I found was with my idea that early entrance programs are an imperfect solution to the need for accelerated learning opportunities for gifted students. I suggested that instead we should have an educational system that provides access to suitable learning opportunities for students from birth through college, regardless of age.

Borland's solution is simple and elegant. If the end goal of programs to serve gifted students is ability-appropriate educational opportunities, the amount of time and energy we are spending on identification is a ridiculous waste of time, not to mention a process fraught with uncertainty and inequity. Instead, we should spend our resources ensuring that all students have an ability-appropriate education. In so doing, the gifted constituency, however one wants to define it, has their needs met, as do all other students, including those that might have been otherwise marginalized.

Which leads me to my crisis/es. Most of my chosen field has taken up the banner of one or another definitions of giftedness, and usually, some method of concluding that a person meets those criteria. I don't think that we can accurately say what giftedness is, figure out how to determine who is actually gifted, or continue to have a viable field while recognizing the ethical, political, and professional implications of being so unsure.

Ive come to the conclusion that I'm not satisfied with the rigor of my doctoral program so far. I don't have a good command of the literature (as evidenced by my startling discovery), I'm not confident in the soundness of some of the major theories in my field, and I'm not convinced of the viability of my degree. I need to immerse myself in the literature and find my way back out.