Gifted Education in Elementary School

I guess that’s what she gets for talking back!

“Regardless of the goals of a particular program, it seems like most public school districts rely heavily on IQ and other achievement-type tests to identify gifted kids, and rely less so on subjective indicators such as teacher/parent input.”

Subjective measures are notoriously hard to validate without a) extensively training the observer (in this case the teacher) beforehand or b) a large number of observers. In the case of a single child with only one or two untrained observers, you’re more likely to find out which children they like the best (i.e. best behaved) rather than the most gifted. And seriously, what parent DOESN’T think their child is gifted?

“After my scant few hours of reading, I didn’t find any substantive research that assesses the benefits of gifted programs on a large scale.”

The problem arises with finding a control group with which to compare. You can’t compare the gifted to the non-gifted because they are by definition different. You can’t randomly assign some of the gifted to non-gifted programs to see how well they do compared to the gifted programs as it would be unethical to deprive them of the education they deserve. You can’t take non-gifted kids and put them in gifted programs as they are doomed (hypothetically) to fail.

There is probably a ton of research out there about these programs and just as many ways to evaluate the kids but you run into a problem of ethics and money. While standardized tests might not feel as “real” to some parents, they have been show (generally) to be valid. I also suspect that IQ tests are not the only measure that is used especially with multiple intelligences and other concepts gaining traction in the field of education.

The problem with the evaluations out there is probably the opposite of what you’d expect. It isn’t that they aren’t “touchy-feely” enough but that they are too touchy-feely for statisticians. In order to get a handle on these programs and whether or not they have an effect, many different statistical and methodological tricks are employed. While having kids fill out a form may seem very “IQ test” to many parents, I assure you there is a world of difference between that and the measurements that the hardcore statisticians would like to make. And these “substandard” (by statistical standards) evaluations cost a TON of money. Money that is getting harder and harder to come by.

The last issue is… Who cares? I mean you care, you have a gifted kid but no one else does. No one wants to spend money on research of a privileged group. Not when there are so many programs out there that are trying to help kids and get them up to speed that need to be researched for effectiveness. So they need a “hook” which generally takes the form of ethnic diversity or global warming… you get the idea. Something to make it “sexy” to the publishers. Sure, there is a need for research into this area, I agree, but it is notoriously hard to research, notoriously expensive, and has very little public motivation behind it. Not exactly a recipe for a federal mandate.

It is easy to show that a child (gifted or not) has learned something – you just give them a test before and after the learning session. What is NOT so easy to ascertain is whether they learned as much as they could have given different circumstances. While it may be common belief (and is probably true) that the right teacher can make all the difference (research has shown that better educated teachers make a difference and that experience doesn’t seem to be a factor), what is not so easy to figure out is whether the right program can make the difference for a group of kids.

Edit – You might want to check out the article title “Lessons Learned about Educating the Gifted and Talented: A Synthesis of the Research on Educational Practice.” I couldn’t find it online for free but you local college library might be able to help you out.

Geez Tom, write a book next time.

Thanks for the article reference - I should be able to get a copy….

Re: who cares…. definitely no one except the parents of the gifted kids and a few educators - I scanned one book that seemed critical of the need for gifted programs at all, but one point the author made was that even those who support gifted programs won’t bring too much attention to the issue for fear of losing what little funding the programs receive at the state level.

And with regard to the school-level programs themselves, teachers don’t want to make a big deal out of the kids leaving the classroom for fear it will make the others resentful. Kids are taught early on not to talk too much about what they do in gifted - so others don’t complain about missing fun stuff. Very few parents push for testing b/c of worries about perception, even fewer raise a fuss if their kid isn’t admitted to the program. If no one talks about it, then the programs aren’t likely to grow.

One issue that struck a chord with me is that gifted kids in a standard classroom who aren’t challenged through the early years of school expect to be able to achieve high levels of success with little or no effort. Then when their workload increases in middle/high school, they don’t have good study habits, and they don’t know how to work through a challenge - they can’t meet their own high expectations. Apparently there is some evidence of this type of kid dropping out and/or doing poorly through the rest of school.

And apparently kids who are gifted start to recognize that they are different and start hiding their abilities so as to conform to the class by late elementary school (particularly girls).

In any case, it makes me aware that Beth breezing through elementary school has a possible downside - and so I plan to pursue any opportunities for additional enrichment that are available. (without scheduling her to death, of course - she can handle one extra activity a week - any more and it is meltdown city!)

Pat - sorry. Perhaps I should have used more 1337 speak?

Theresa - It is sort of a double edged sword isn’t it? There seems to be a sort implied guilt with smart kids. Which really means that those kids are more ignored (from a research perspective) than any other children. It’s like, “Don’t rock the boat or someone will complain that we’re taking money away from the dumb kids.” Heck, IMO (for you Pat) we should be spending at least as much on the smart kids. They are where the future of the country is at.

I wonder how gifted kids function in Montessori classrooms where they can work at their own pace. Since they’re in a class with a range of ages, their peers will have a range of skills to compare themselves with. In theory, it sounds like a great idea!