Info from AGATE

Does Acceleration Really Work?
The Issue
Many current studies and professional readings today
focus on differentiating instruction for struggling
students. Gifted students, however, are often given
peer-tutoring tasks, extra worksheets, or told to go
read a book when they demonstrate quick mastery of
the curriculum content at their grade level. A need
to encourage high achievers is especially critical for
economically disadvantaged students, who usually
don’t have recourse to private classes, museum activities,
or other enrichment opportunities common to
families in the middle to upper socioeconomic levels.
How can teachers meet expectations of raising test
scores to secure maximum funding for their lower
students and still differentiate lessons for high-ability
learners?
The Research
Acceleration is a means to move students through an
educational program faster or at younger ages than
would typically happen. This fast track can involve
grade-based or subject-based acceleration—either
type has advantages for children. The Templeton
National Report on Acceleration lists eighteen researchbased
ideas for effective, inexpensive ways to keep
the brightest students engaged in learning. Examples
include early entrance to kindergarten, spending part
of the school day in a higher grade level for one or
more subjects, and even skipping grades. Many authors
and researchers see acceleration as a major means for
leveling the playing field between rich and poor
schools.
Individual research studies and even large meta-analysis
studies of the impact of acceleration on academic
achievement and social adjustment show no discernable
negative effects on students or schools who participate
in some form of acceleration. In fact, students of the
same age and IQ scores usually improve by at least
one full year of academic growth when acceleration
techniques are implemented. Other advantages cited
in these studies for students who go on a faster track
include improvement in:
• Motivation and academic engagement;
• Confidence and leadership ability;
• Social and emotional development;
• Scholarship; and
• Problem solving and critical and creative thinking
skills.
Some Options to Consider
• Subject Skipping: Could a student from one room
visit a higher grade-level room for one or two subject
areas a day, such as sending a second grader to
a fourth grade room for math, or a ninth grade
English student to a twelfth grade English class for
a British literature unit?
• Grade Skipping: Could a student who scores at the
99th percentile on an achievement test skip one
grade level?
• Early Entrance: Could a socially mature preschool
child be admitted to kindergarten before the age
cut-off date, even if only for three or four days a
week?
• Team Teaching: Could teachers at one grade level do
ability grouping for one or two subject areas during
the day or week, such as Teacher A working with
anyone reading two or more grade levels above
average for all classrooms at that grade level in that
building?
References
Colangelo, N., Assouline, S.G., & Gross, M.U.M. (2004).
A nation deceived: How schools hold back America’s brightest
students. Retrieved February 5, 2009, from http://www.
accelerationinstitute.org/Nation_Deceived/ND_v1.pdf
Davis, G. A., & Rimm, S. B. (2003). Education of the gifted
and talented (5th edition). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.
Rogers, K. B. (2007, January). Lessons learned about educating
the gifted and talented: A synthesis of the research
on educational practice. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51(4), 382-
396.
VanTassel-Baska, J. (2006, October). NAGC Symposium: A
report card on the state of research in the field of gifted education.
Gifted Child Quarterly, 50(4), 339-341.
APRIL 2009
VOLUME 8 • ISSUE 9
Phi Delta Kappa International, 408 N. Union Street, Bloomington, IN 47405-3800
800.766.1156 • tnt@pdkintl.org • www.pdkintl.org
Copyright © 2009 by Cheryl Irish

The Elephant in the Classroom

Author(s): Page, E. & Keith, T.
Source: Intellectual Talent, Johns Hopkins University Press 1996

"Intelligence"--that quaint term--has become a source of embarrassment. There is pressure not to acknowledge that variance in human mental ability exists, a feeling that we should not mention such variance, and that if we were really virtuous we would be blind to it.

This is especially true in regard to the group with high intelligence--the gifted. Fashionable attention is aimed the other way, with extensive programs to help those of lesser ability, and these programs have led to a new vocabulary of politically correct speech. In a questionnaire sent to school principals asking how many gifted children they had in their schools, 27 percent said they had none. Because, of course, the next question might be: What are you doing for these gifted students?

The Elephant
It is as if we had an elephant in a classroom, but there were strict rules not to see it. We can imagine the teacher on the first day:

"Now class, it is common that when students first come in, they have the silly impression that there is some large, noisy, lumbering animal in this room. Don't feel embarrassed if you have the same idea [chuckle]. It's only natural.

"But, of course, we all know that there is no such animal outside of old folk tales. You have this idea just because you have been told about it.

"If you're going to do well here, you have to get rid of this idea. Let's not hear any talk about tusks, or trunks, or big gray ears, or the other things that people imagine."

Yet talent searches across the country have made it much more difficult to igore the elephants in our classrooms. Each year, more than 140,000 twelve-year-olds take the SAT or ACT and submit their scores to talent searches and, thereby, make their talents public.

Having found these talented youngsters, what should we do with them? They require special provisions, special classes, and acceleration. Consequently, talent-search programs across the land have begun to offer work tailored for such youngsters.

So now we all recognize the elephant, yes?

No.

There are large numbers of gifted students who require special educational attention. Yet those dictating school policy, and those controlling group-think in education, often reject the very idea of the elephant. This rejection is strident, and it seems to be gaining momentum. Far from supporting the addition of new programs for the talented, the current mood reacts emotionally against the ones we have now.

Tracking
Nowhere is this trend more evident than with regard to the question of tracking or ability grouping: assigning students to different classrooms according to mental ability or subject-matter precocity. In this chapter we will treat the general question of whether students should be instructionally grouped for educational ability; we will not probe here the distinctions some make among grouping, tracking, mainstreaming, and so forth. Our interest is in a broad, psychological treatment of the current debate about instruction and student ability.

This chapter addresses the "detracking" movement in today's schools. As Passow (1988) notes, the literature on this subject ranges "from scholarly reports of research findings to philosophical statements to emotional polemics" (p. 205). Indeed, today the general assault typically emphasizes these polemics, with the charged word "inequality" dominating much of the language of those against ability grouping. Consider an article cowritten by Jeannie Oakes, a professor at the University of California at Los Angeles and perhaps the movement's most visible advocate. This article was published in the Phi Delta Kappan under the title "Detracking Schools: Early Lessons from the Field" (Oakes & Lipton, 1992): "During the past decade, research on tracking and ability grouped class assignments has provided striking evidence that these practices have a negative impact on most children's school opportunities and outcomes. Moreover, the negative consequences of these practices disproportionately affect low-income, African-American, and Latino children" (p. 448; emphasis added). "Striking evidence"? She cites works by others and herself, and two of her own titles give a sense of the movement's intention: Keeping Track: How Schools Structure Inequality (Oakes, 1985) and Multiplying Inequalities: The Effects of Race, Social Class, and Tracking on Opportunities to Learn Math and Science (Oakes, 1990).

Another writer who finds ability grouping culpable is Linda Darling Hammond (1991); "These curricular differences explain much of the disparity between the achievement of white and minority students and between the achievement of higher- and lower-income students.... In this way the uses of tests have impeded rather than supported the pursuit of high and rigorous educational goals for all students." Darling-Hammond cites Lee and Bryk (1988), Oakes, and others to support her remarkable charges, which blame classroom grouping for many of the average differences between race and class groups.

Attackers of ability grouping particularly cite key articles by Robert Slavin (1987,1988,1990a), whose "best-evidence syntheses" are taken as the strongest scientific statements for their side.¹ On the other side, defending ability grouping, are critics of Slavin's methods and conclusions (Gamoran, 1987; Hallina 1990; Hiebert, 1987; Kulik, 1985; Kulik, 1991; Kulik & Kulik, 1982,1984,198 Nevi, 1987; Walberg, 1988).

Although the scientific arguments seem to favor ability grouping, anyone who visits schools sees an apparently headlong movement to abandon it practice. And American citizens, who pay for and suffer from decisions about the schools, decidedly favor the placement of "mentally handicapped" children in special classes. A recent Gallup poll shows 67 percent to 22 percent in support of such tracking (Elam, Rose, & Gallup, 1992, p. 51).

Our profession needs to respond to the claims against tracking, because if they are believed, and class assignments are reorganized without regard to mental ability, the movement away from tracking could greatly affect the future of students, especially of the most gifted students.

Problems of Evidence
The key question is: Does tracking help students or hurt them? Most educators of the gifted would probably say that it helps the abler students. Does tracking hurt other students? Many people claim that it damages poor, black, and Hispanic students, and some would agree with the statement that it destroys "high and rigorous" standards for "all students" (Darling-Hammond, 1991).

Any debate about cause and effect involves problems of evidence. Where should we look for proof? Basically, there appear to be four lines of evidence.

These are:

1. Indirect argument from principles of measurement

2. Indirect argument from principles of learning

3. Direct sampling from experimental evidence

4. Direct sampling from nonexperimental data sets

Principles of Measurement
Under the principles of measurement, one of the two basic disciplines of educational psychology, ability differences are accepted by virtually all scientists as important and as strongly rooted in biology. These principles have been revealed for generations by Galton, Spearman, Binet, Terman, and many others.²

Almost all scientists agree that intelligence (or g) is easily found as a general or higher-order factor in virtually any set of measures of mental ability, verbal or nonverbal, "fluid" or "crystallized" (Cattell, 1987). G is also widely acknowledged as the best overall predictor of school and occupational success (Ree & Earles, 1992; Schmidt & Hunter, 1992). Indeed, g is well correlated even with measures, such as nerve-response time, that are totally noncultural (see e.g., Jensen, 1992). And the rationale for using multiple competence tests in place of intelligence tests has for the most part been set aside (see, e.g., Barrett & Depinet, 1991).

Opponents of ability grouping commonly claim that mental tests are racially biased, but testing experts are virtually in complete agreement that they are not (see Humphreys, 1992; Linn, 1982). In short, the findings of measurement indirectly support ability grouping in classes as being useful, noninjurious, and nondiscriminatory.

Principles of Learning
In educational psychology, the other major theme is that school learning acts according to certain "laws" common to most learning: principles investigated by Pavlov, Ebbinghaus, Skinner, Thorndike, and many others. Among the widely accepted principles are: working from the simple to the complex, working from the known to the unknown, and starting each lesson near each student's current level of achievement. The idea of individual "readiness" is meant to summarize such principles.

Learning is commonly taken to be individual in locus. It is exhibited in individual behavior and (biochemically) takes place within a single nervous system. Opponents of ability grouping are quite hostile to this emphasis on the individual. One opponent spoke at a session of the American Educational Research Association of the need for "less individualism and more communi-tarianism" (Annual Meeting of the AERA, San Francisco, April 1992). To sidestep this problem of individual differences, opponents of grouping often argue that the best instruction is through "cooperative learning" (see, e.g., Slavin, 1983). In such instruction, the huge problems of heterogeneity are obscured by many student interactions in smaller subsets (each small group having the stronger students teaching the weaker ones). In such classrooms, grades may be given for the performance of the group rather than for the performance of the individual.

Opponents of tracking must reject these established principles of measurement and learning, either by ignoring them or by attacking them (e.g., by claiming that mental tests are biased). But these two major areas of psychological theory, measurement and learning, with their mountains of cumulative evidence and reasoning, provide powerful indirect evidence in favor of grouping students for efficient instruction. And ability grouping has been strongly favored by classroom teachers, surely a sort of testimony that should be properly weighed before drastic changes are made (cf. ERIC Clearinghouse on Tests, Measurement, and Evaluation, 1988, which summarizes teachers' attitudes toward mainstreaming, and Reddick & Pearch, 1984, which reports on nearly a thousand teachers' feelings about tracking).

When researchers study applied questions, however, we commonly wish to go beyond such background principles and to study how various policies have fared in practice. Thus we consider here the two major sources of direct evidence about practices: experimentation in the schools and nonexperimental models using large data sets.

Experimental Evidence
We turn again to one of Julian Stanley's most important contributions to the social sciences: his comprehensive study of research design (see, e.g., Campbell & Stanley, 1963). If we were working in the laboratory sciences, we could perform true experiments, in which the key causal variable (here, ability grouping) would be assigned randomly to the experimental subjects (the students). Then the experimental effect might be estimated from appropriate tests taken by the students.

But in the schools, instruction must take place in classrooms. The appropriate "subjects" would properly be such classrooms, and the evidence would be classroom means on the proper tests. (These are still based on individual scores, and do not contradict the essentially private nature of learning.) In the real world, however, it is unlikely that teachers could be assigned to classrooms at random within a school. Too many other adjustments would be required in the ongoing curriculum.

The assumption behind ability grouping is that the curriculum should be adjusted to the ability levels of the students. If teachers were assigned at random, then it seems unlikely that there would be as much adjustment as when teachers are used to teaching certain defined levels of ability. It seems improbable, then, that the outcome of a random experiment would truly represent the long-term effects of such grouping.

Robert Slavin (1987, 1990b) preferred the data from "experiments," and emphasized those in his "best-evidence" summaries. Thus, for secondary schools (1990b), he reviewed six studies that were "randomized," nine that were "matched," and fourteen correlational studies. His own conclusion was that the results were sufficiently mixed as not to prove overall beneficial effects. He therefore concluded that because his research did not prove benefits in achievement, ability grouping was wrong. In sum, he was opposed to grouping for reasons other than the evidence he collected. He acknowledged, "I am personally opposed to ability grouping, and, particularly in the absence of any evidence of positive effects for anyone, I believe that between-class ability grouping should be greatly reduced" (1990a, p. 506, emphasis added).³

Thus, when Slavin's review failed to convince him of any benefits of grouping, he declared that "there [was] little reason to maintain the practice" (1990b, p. 492). He is often cited by other opponents of grouping, such as Oakes and Darling-Hammond, as if he had indeed proved harm. But this is not the case. Other scholars, frequently studying the same materials as Slavin, have reached quite different conclusions (Feldhusen, 1989, 1991; Gamoran, 1986; Gamoran & Berends, 1987; Kulik & Kulik, 1987).

In any case, the evidence from true experiments is quite thin. Little wonder; such experiments would be disruptive of the usual practices in a school or classroom, and would require much new preparation. Yet paradoxically, an experiment would be invalid if it did not cause school changes from one treatment to another, since it would then not represent the potential differences in curriculum and teaching made possible by grouping.

Nonexperimental Evidence
Because major experimental assignments can be so disruptive, we must look elsewhere for data to test our policies.

The good news is that the federal government has produced massive data sets of highly generalizable materials. These began with Project Talent in the 1960s (the records of which are, however, virtually unreachable by the common researcher). The 1972 National Longitudinal Study (NLS) with five follow-ups through 1986, has been made widely available on computer tapes. And in 1980 there appeared the massive High School and Beyond (HSB), the first in a series of tapes, now out on disks for personal computers. In its follow-ups (1982, 1984, and 1986), HSB also presented much information about school curricula and some aspects of tracking. Still more recent data sets now exist: the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) and the National Educational Longitudinal Study (NELS, of 1988 and after).

The bad news is this: to study the effects of ability grouping, we ideally need data about both ability and grouping. NLS and HSB are the only data sets with good ability measures--that is, test results largely independent of the achievement measures for the same students. But in these data sets the tracking practices are often difficult to identify. On the other hand, grouping practices are clearer in the more recent data sets (NAEP and NELS), but intelligence measures are nonexistent apart from those for achievement in the various subject-matter areas. In earlier data sets (Talent, NLS, and HSB), student ability was the most useful correlate, the most powerful predictor, for a host of important educational outcomes. It was far more important than income, social class, ethnicity, or school practices.

One fears that ability was too explanatory for political correctness; these nonschool, nonverbal subtests have been removed from the new data sets. Even the brief vocabulary quiz, such a quick and useful measure of general ability, has been stricken from the newer data sets. How unfortunate! And especially unfortunate are the researchers wishing to study ability grouping and its effects on achievement, who have no measures of ability not confounded with the achievement measures they are trying to explain. For this study, we have chosen High School and Beyond, with its good ability measures. (But as noted below, we have had to compromise on the estimation of ability grouping.)

There are other weaknesses in the nonexperimental data with regard to our questions. One is the assignment to classes. Rarely will this be made totally on the basis of an ability score. More often some other factor, such as past accomplishment, will influence a student's assignment to an abler or less able classroom. Such other factors may make the abler classroom appear more effective in its curriculum than it really is, and the weaker class less effective than it is. (This may often lead to a belief that ability grouping had good or bad effects, when both are illusions caused by the methods used to select the high and low groups.)

In short, when we look at the present arguments about ability grouping, we find no persuasive case for those who wish to abolish it. To the contrary, we find that the principles of both measurement and learning argue for ability grouping. And we find no direct evidence, whether experimental or nonexperimental, to justify wiping out ability grouping. Yet there are sources of data for analysis, and we would like, in what follows, to cast more light on such grouping than we have seen in the literature to date.

Ability Grouping or Academic Programs?
We have encountered the same difficulties as others in conducting research on the effects of ability grouping, and, as a result, our evidence about tracking is indirect. But it is also highly relevant to the debate.

The difficulties in conducting research on the effects of ability grouping are magnified at the high school level because students can choose—or are assigned—different types of courses. Thus, the effects of ability grouping are confounded with those of streaming into vocational, general, and academic programs.

But what about such streams? Should they not provide us with some information about ability grouping? Our own research and that of others, for example, suggests that academic coursework is among the most powerful influences on high school students' learning (Keith & Cool, 1992; Keith & Page, 1985).

To narrow the focus: does participation in an academic program, rather than a general-education or vocational program, improve student learning? We attempt to answer that question and then look at its relevance for ability grouping.

Method
For all the analyses discussed here we have used the senior cohort of the 1980 HSB. This data set provides a nationally representative sample of more than fifty-eight thousand high school students, with twenty-eight thousand seniors. For intelligence, this cohort provides fairly robust measures, including some elementary measures little related to the high school curriculum. On the achievement side, however, the measures are of fairly basic skills rather than of the advanced abilities we would prefer to assess. Thus, we have some concerns about ceiling effects for any gifted students in the cohort.

We have conducted ordinary multiple regression analyses, which we will present as path models.

Effects of Academic Programs
Does participation in an academic track improve learning? To answer that question, we simply compared, using a dummy variable, students in an academic track (coded 1) with students in a vocational or general-education track (coded 0).

The model is presented in figure 11.2. We also controlled for students' ethnicity, family background (or socioeconomic status), and intellectual ability. The ability component included two vocabulary tests and two mosaic comparison tests--two nonverbal measures that load as well as the vocabulary tests on a general-intelligence factor. The achievement component included two mathematics tests and one reading test.

The type of program had a substantial effect on student achievement (.22). This is impressive, especially for such a grossly categorized variable as academic program; the .22 figure suggests that one's program in high school has a substantial effect on one's high school academic achievement.

Such programs, of course, are not exactly the same as ability grouping. But what is of interest is the comparison of the effect on students in general with the effect on high-ability students. We next selected only those students who scored a standard deviation or more above the mean. When we re-ran the model for these higher-ability youth, we found what can only be described as a massive .35. Thus, it appears that an academic track is even more beneficial for bright students than for others, and that abler students who are not placed in more challenging courses are being injured in their tested outcomes.

As we noted, this is indirect evidence. But it suggests that opponents of tracking may be off the mark, especially for gifted youth.

Effects of Homogeneous Grouping
The evidence for type of high school program is suggestive, but indirect. We return, then, to the central question: Is clustering by ability good or bad for gifted youth? Another way to look at this question is to ask whether students--especially gifted students--perform better in homogeneous or in heterogeneous ability groups. Refocusing the question as homogeneity versus heterogeneity gives us more flexibility in answering it. HSB does not have adequate data about grouping per se, and thus we cannot resolve this question with our data at the class level. We can, however, broaden the question and examine the effect of homogeneity versus heterogeneity at the school level.

HSB used a two-stage sampling procedure, with schools as the first level, and up to thirty-six seniors selected at random from each school. We calculated the standard deviation of the ability scores for each school and thus created a measure of the heterogeneity of ability at each of the nearly one thousand schools in HSB. Then we reversed the standard deviation of ability so that homogeneous schools received high scores and heterogeneous schools received low ones. We then used this new variable to examine the effect on student achievement of the homogeneity in ability--the underlying theme of ability grouping.

Effects on All Students
The first analysis held no surprises. Homogeneity in ability had a positive effect on achievement (see figure 11.3), but it was a small one. Indeed, even though this effect is statistically significant, we generally do not consider paths below .05 meaningful. This finding corresponds quite well with that of Kulik and Kulik (1987): ability grouping shows a (rather slight) overall favorable effect on achievement.

High-Ability Youth
But our concern in this research is primarily with gifted youth rather than youth in general. Is homogeneous grouping helpful or harmful for brighter students? When we selected only the top 16 percent of seniors, our analyses painted a quite different picture. When we examined the effects of homogeneity on high-ability students, we found a moderate influence of homogeneity on achievement (.13; see figure 11.4). (This and subsequent figures focus only on the effects of variability in ability; other effects are not included.)

Greater variability produces lower achievement, and greater homogeneity produces higher achievement. That is, high-ability students perform better when they are in a homogeneous, rather than a heterogeneous, environment.

Opponents of ability grouping may argue that these findings are well and good, but that ability grouping is harmful for minority students. When we examined the effect of homogeneity on high-ability black youth, however, we found it had a much stronger effect on these students than on high-ability students in general. Whereas homogeneity has a moderate positive effect on all high-ability youth (.13), it has a very strong positive effect on high-ability black youth (.32; see figure 11.4). This powerful effect suggests that we should oppose heterogeneity and support grouping. Also, we found a substantial effect in favor of grouping for high-ability Hispanic youth (.24; see figure 11.4).

"Well," our hypothetical opponent of grouping might say, "grouping may be good for high-ability youth, but it undoubtedly is harmful for low-ability youth." Again our data disagree. Ability grouping had no substantive positive or negative effect on low-ability students in general (.00), on low-ability black students (.01), or on low-ability Hispanic students (.01), Contrary to current conventional wisdom, surrounding a low-ability student with a homogeneous group of students seems to have no effect. Homogeneous grouping is not apparently helpful for such students, but neither is it harmful.

Other Outcomes
Our opponent might argue (as opponents have time and again) that our analyses are too narrow because they focus only on achievement as an outcome. Does research not show that grouping is detrimental to students' self-esteem and aspirations? Such arguments rest on assumptions about the ill effects of grouping or of other systems of classification or labeling. For a deep analysis of the defects of "labeling theory," see Gordon's (1980) critique. But what of our own findings with the HSB data? Again, we could find no support for such arguments.

Educational Aspirations
We studied the effects of homogeneity in ability on students' educational aspirations: how far they and their parents want them to go in school (see figure 11.5). On students in general there were no effects of homogeneity in ability on aspirations. On high-ability students there was a small positive effect, and on high-ability Hispanic students there was a moderate positive effect. The effect on high-ability black students was insignificant.

Self-Concept
We also studied the effects of homogeneity on students based on a four-item self-concept scale in HSB (cf. Pottebaum, Keith, & Ehly, 1986). Grouping had no significant effect on students in general, on high-ability students, on high-ability black students, or on high-ability Hispanic students (see figure 11.6).

Locus of Control
Similarly, we studied the effects of homogeneity on students based on a four-item locus-of-control scale. On students in general and on high-ability students, being in a homogeneous group had a significant, but nonmeaningful, positive effect on locus of control. Homogeneous grouping had insignificant effects on the locus of control of high-ability black and Hispanic students.

In summary, we could find no evidence that grouping--attending schools with a homogeneous instead of a heterogeneous group of students, as ascertained by our ability measures--had any negative effect on these important nonacademic criteria. Indeed, the only significant effects we found are in favor of such grouping. Although supporting data are not presented here, there were also essentially no effects on students of low ability.

Caveats
We have already noted the problems and dangers of nonexperimental research, and we should, therefore, be cautious in our interpretation of these findings. Critics of grouping might argue that our research is flawed in other ways. Perhaps we find these effects because our ability measure is verbally weighted. Our hypothetical critic might argue that we should instead examine nonverbal ability, because it may be a "fairer" yardstick for minority youth. In fact, the effects in favor of grouping were even stronger when our examinations used the control of nonverbal ability (mosaic comparisons) alone.

Perhaps homogeneity of ability is simply a proxy for the average ability of the school. That is, is it not simply high-ability youth going to school with other high-ability youth that makes the difference? No. The addition of the mean ability of the school in our models made no substantive difference in these results.

Critics can point out that it is not really grouping we are studying. Our analyses have concerned the homogeneity of ability at the school level rather than at the classroom level. Our choice to study homogeneity was one of necessity: HSB simply had no adequate measures of grouping, unconfounded with other variables such as students' high school streams. And in some ways, homogeneity may be a preferred variable to study. It is, after all, at the heart of the controversy: Do students learn better in an environment with students similar to themselves, or with those different from themselves?

In addition, if we had been able to control for grouping at the classroom level rather than at the school level, our results--generally in favor of grouping for high-ability youth--would logically have been stronger rather than weaker. Undoubtedly some of the highly heterogeneous schools practice grouping at the classroom level, thus gaining some of the positive effects of homogeneity. Therefore, the positive effects found here may underestimate the true effects of grouping.

Finally, these results in favor of homogeneous schools were obtained with fairly basic measures of reading and math achievement. If the HSB tests had contained measures of advanced knowledge in these and other subject matters, our effects would again likely be stronger. Better measurement of grouping and achievement would likely result in stronger, not weaker, estimates of the positive effects of homogeneous ability groups on high-ability youth.

Summary
Schooling in a homogeneous group of students appears to have a positive effect on high-ability students' achievements, and even stronger effects on the achievements of high-ability minority youth. Grouping does not seem to affect negatively the achievements of low-ability youth. Indeed, ability grouping seems to have no consistent negative effects on any group or any outcome we studied.

Therefore, we reject the claims of opponents of ability grouping that it is harmful to students' achievements, aspirations, or self-perceptions. Instead, we assert that ability grouping may have positive effects on gifted students' learning, the most important educational outcome, and that these effects seem particularly powerful on gifted minority youth. If grouping indeed has positive effects on high-ability youth and no negative effects on low-ability youth, we can see no reason to support the current trend away from ability grouping. Talents are far too rare, and too valuable for society, to be sacrificed on an altar of blind egalitarianism.

Notes

1. But see Slavin, Madden, Karweit, Livermon, & Dolan (1990) for a remarkable contradiction of the antitracking principle: in the "Success for All" program, which he reports as highly effective, primary students are put into reading groups for ninety minutes a day on the basis of reading level. Especially note the reasons Slavin and his colleagues claim for its success: "The idea behind regrouping is to allow teachers to teach the whole reading class without having to break the class into reading groups. This greatly reduces the time needed for seatwork and increases direct instruction time. ... It does ensure that every reading class will be at only one reacting level, eliminating workbooks, dittos, or other follow-up activities that are needed in classes with multiple reading groups" (emphasis added).

Slavin's own strategy in practice is especially notable in sweeping aside any social considerations: "a reading class might contain first-, second-, and third-grade students all reading at the same level" (p. 259, emphasis added). The physical and social differences between first and third grade are, of course, tremendous. And both children and their families will be well aware of the dramatic group differences.

2. This is not the place to argue these elementary and other principles, since they may be found in most advanced texts on measurement, learning, behavior genetics, and similar subjects.

3. As the scholar can easily note, there often is a division along disciplinary lines, with sociologists usually opposed to grouping (see also Kerckhoff, 1986), and measurement specialists more often in favor of it. But there are distinguished exceptions on both sides.

*Please see original chapter for all figures.

Acknowledgments
Thanks are given to Robert Gordon, John S. Lutz, Harry Passow, and Betsy Becker for useful comments and information.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact:

Jessica Stephenson
Project Public Awareness
Moody's Mega Math Challenge/SIAM
Phone: (267) 350-6383
E-Mail: stephenson@siam.org

Monday, November 10, 2008

High school students in New England and Mid-Atlantic states to compete for $80,000

Moody's Mega Math Challenge expands and increases scholarship prizes

Philadelphia, PA - Online registration opens today for the 2009 Moody's Mega Math (M³) Challenge, an Internet-based applied mathematics contest open to high school juniors and seniors in all New England and Mid-Atlantic states, from Maine to Washington, D.C. The real-world math-modeling competition will award scholarship prizes totaling $80,000 with members of the top six winning teams sharing prizes ranging from $2,500 to $20,000. Up to 20 honorable mention team awards of $1,000 each will also be awarded. The 2009 Challenge weekend is March 7-8, and there are no entrance or participation fees.

High schools in eligible areas may register up to two teams of three, four, or five juniors and/or seniors with one teacher serving as the team's coach. Students choose the day that they wish to work on Challenge weekend, either Saturday or Sunday, as well as the location(s) where they will work. They then have 14 hours to solve an applied math-modeling problem focused on real-world issues. Past Challenge problems have covered areas such as social security solvency, stock portfolios, and the wisdom of replacing gas with ethanol.

A five-minute video providing an overview of the Challenge and footage of previous winners can be viewed at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClUENL4z2_Y.

Conducted annually by The Moody's Foundation and the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics (SIAM) as part of their shared commitment to increasing students' interest in studying and pursuing careers in applied mathematics, the M³ Challenge spotlights applied mathematics as a powerful problem-solving tool, as a vital contributor to advances in an increasingly technical society, and as a viable and exciting profession.

The M³ Challenge, which began in 2006 in metropolitan New York City and the surrounding areas, expanded in 2008 to include Boston, Philadelphia, and the environs, sweeping from lower New Hampshire to Wilmington, Delaware. It now encompasses the entire Northeast, from Maine to Washington D.C. In the first three years, approximately 540 teams comprised of 2400 students participated and almost $200,000 in scholarship prizes was awarded.

For more information, visit http://m3challenge.siam.org/.

###

About the Sponsor
The Moody's Foundation is a charitable organization dedicated to supporting a variety of nonprofit education, health and human services, civic, and arts and culture programs. Established by Moody's Corporation in 2001, the Foundation's primary area of giving is secondary and higher education with a focus on mathematics, economics and finance. Further information is available at http://philanthropy.moodys.com/.

Moody's Corporation (NYSE: MCO), an essential component of the global capital markets, provides credit ratings, research, tools and analysis that contribute to stable, transparent and integrated financial markets. Moody's Corporation is the parent company of Moody's Investors Service and Moody's Analytics, encompassing Moody's non-ratings businesses. With revenues of $2.3 billion in 2007, Moody's employs approximately 3,600 people worldwide and maintains a presence in 27 countries. Further information is available at http://www.moodys.com/ohttp:/www.moodys.com/.

The Committee Encouraging Corporate Philanthropy (CECP) awarded Moody's Corporation a 2008 Excellence Award for Moody's Mega Math Challenge, citing the company's "sophisticated giving program that encourages students to develop a passion for mathematics, economics, and finance."

About the Organizer
The Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics (SIAM), headquartered in Philadelphia, PA, is an international society of almost 12,000 individual members. These include applied and computational mathematicians and computer scientists, as well as other scientists and engineers. Members are researchers, educators, students, and practitioners from 85 countries in industry, government, laboratories, and academia. The Society, which also includes nearly 500 academic and corporate institutional members, serves and advances the disciplines of applied mathematics and computational science by publishing a variety of books and prestigious peer-reviewed research journals, by conducting conferences, and by hosting activity groups in various areas of mathematics. SIAM provides many opportunities for students including regional sections and student chapters. Further information is available at http://www.siam.org/ohttp:/www.siam.org/.

_______________________________________________

The Emotional Journey of the Gifted and Talented Adolescent Female

Suzanne Blakeley

Sarah rolled her eyes then laughed as half a dozen waiters gathered around the table to sing "Happy Birthday." Turning 16, our daughter recently celebrated a rite of passage that will soon bring car keys, added responsibilities, and long-awaited freedoms. It was a bittersweet moment for me: Sarah was still healing from an intense, yet brief depression, she battled during ninth grade.

At 14, our daughter lost a hard fought struggle. Her slow descent into depression began during fourth grade after our family's relocation to the East. Once self-confident and happy, she became filled with anxiety and frustration by the end of middle school. In ninth grade Sarah was haunted by rapid thoughts, and sleepless nights. Her tremendous mental energies eventually spiraled inward, settling into a looping, repetitive chant: I'm unacceptable.

"What is happening? Why me?" she cried. Nearly three decades ago, I asked myself these same questions when I suffered from a similar depression. I had hoped my own experience would spare my child such pain. Devastated, I assured Sarah that in time she would discover the answers to her questions.

The One Who Seems to Need the Least, Often Needs the Most
We notified the high school of her emotional difficulties and her teachers were surprised: Sarah had always been gregarious and maintained high marks. At home, however, she shed the mask she wore each day to school. Exhausted, she hurled angry looks and disrespectful comments toward family members before withdrawing to her room.

Sarah's depression was quite a storm that affected the entire family: her older sister was worried, patient and understanding; her father, identified as gifted in the late 1950s, began to speak openly about his own feelings of being misunderstood and "differentness." I felt alone, unaware of the wealth of available support and resources. Sarah's difficulties brought for me a deeper understanding of why special assistance is so essential for the gifted to achieve intellectual potential and the acceptance each requires and deserves.

Thankfully, her recovery was amazingly swift. Therefore, I share Sarah's story and our parental successes, failings, and revelations in the spirit of helping others. Sometimes courageous young women attending traditional public and private schools today "fall through the cracks."

Factoring in Past Life Experiences
Upon relocating, Sarah's father and I were delighted to find a community in proximity to a major metropolitan area, a school district that followed a similar curriculum, and a home within a neighborhood setting. Sarah—an extrovert and risk-taker born with an easy temperament—accepted the move as another one of life's great adventures, since past moves had brought positive experiences.

Her formative years were spent in large, homogeneous suburban districts located in the Midwest. Coursework was differentiated within the classroom to provide challenge based upon her individual learning style, abilities, and interest (Schoolwide Enrichment Model). Sarah advanced as far as she was capable, while avoiding much of the "differentness" that pullout programs or tracking often create among peers.

Teaching complemented Sarah's visual, hands-on, inductive learning style; she accepted the repetition of skills required to master certain materials without hesitation. Interdisciplinary activities allowed Sarah to work with peers of varying ages; her older sister also increased her opportunities, allowing even greater autonomy at a young age.

The district was responsive and well-funded with a strong infrastructure. Academic assessment was ongoing, and curriculum and conduct policies were well-developed and consistently followed. "Character Counts" and "Kindness is Contagious" programs ensured respectful interactions among peers and staff.

At an early age, Sarah understood that her action, inaction, or reaction to presented experiences were under her control. She learned how her voice and personal choices impacted her and those around her, further reinforcing independent development of positive life strategies. She flourished academically and personally.

Our parenting style closely parallels this type of educational environment. My husband and I share a strong bond based upon common values and similar intellect, and we continue a family tradition of open expression and respect. Our approach is individualized and authoritative with "directives" seldom issued. With praise and physical affection, we acknowledge good personal choices that dwell within guidelines set by a blend of Christian and Classical Western philosophies. Independent thought is stressed along with the right to personal expression, as long as it does not harm others.

We facilitate the learning process. Sarah moves freely beneath our guidelines to make personal decisions based upon her abilities and past choices. She is allowed to experience the natural consequences for inappropriate actions, which is often the most difficult part of parenting. We step in only when a choice or action may cause irreparable harm.

This type of parenting and Sarah's differentiated schooling promoted her exceptional problem-solving abilities, which enhanced her independence and self-discipline. During adolescence, her past experiences and our philosophy also created the fertile ground for plenty of "intellectual debate" as it invites questioning.

The Extroverted Gifted and Talented Adolescent Is Often a Lonely Profile
Bright and creative, Sarah's grades have always been excellent in all disciplines. Her talents literally exploded during middle school. One year she focused on mathematics, then the next year it would be language arts and music. This pattern continues into high school. Our daughter possesses the well-documented gifted intellectual and personality characteristics. Among other traits, her sensitivity, empathy, and drive to understand were heightened at 8 years old.

Sarah "stuck out" during middle school, physically maturing at 11. She was socially more mature and a full head taller than the majority of her peers. She was smart and "different" during a period when peer pressure mounts, and academics often take a back seat to socialization. Highly articulate, she also resolved peer conflict in an adult manner.

Considering Sarah's capabilities and innate strong sense of self, I recognized long ago that we must avoid treading upon her emerging independence: we must provide assistance without overprotection. She lacked life experience and her emotional maturity was not yet fully synchronized with her advanced intellectual and social development. This created difficulties when parenting her in a diverse world filled with "Instant Messaging," peer violence, and mixed media messages.

Our child allowed me a peek into her thinking during various stages of growth; poignant statements popped out unexpectedly while she accompanied me on errands, when I washed dishes, or at her bedtime (see box below). During our mutual exploration of her thoughts, my daughter's personal choices assured me she was developing strategies and choosing appropriate activities to positively channel and balance her strengths.

"The Art of Listening"

Sarah's short statements were often the most revealing of her inner turmoil and unmet needs. Self-discovery and growth are solitary and often painful processes, and they take great patience on the part of the parent. We allowed these statements and others to guide us in assisting her on her timetable, preserving her independence.

"Why do people speak to each other so harshly?"
"The teacher is always screaming."
"Can you give me extra spelling words?"
1994, 4th grade

"Mom, for some reason I don't seem to be connecting with the kids at school."
1996, 7th grade

"I often 'dip down' so I can have friends."
"I feel so controlled; this school feels like a prison."
"There is no respect for individuality."
1998, end of 8th grade

"I'm struggling. I feel like I'm suffocating."
"Grandpa, I think the high school will open up more opportunities for me."
Summer 1999, upon entrance to 9th grade

"How would you feel if all you did was deal with clueless kids all day long?"
"I think one way, but I feel another way."
"I surround myself with a bubble."
"I'm not making good choices for myself lately."
"My strengths are a curse."
1999, 9th grade

"This is the first year I have ever felt challenged at school."
"The kids don't have the same experiences that I have. Where are all the kids like me?"
"It's hard, I'm lonely, but it is better to be who I am."
"Thank you for sticking by me and helping me be the best I can be."
2000, 10th grade

Sarah voiced several concerns beginning in fourth grade: her dismay with an environment that lacked the opportunities she required for intellectual and personal growth; the uncivil and inconsistent behaviors of adults and peers; and the increasing lack of connection from peers.

A Shattered Idealism: Things Are Not the Way They Ought to Be
By the time Sarah entered middle school, district leadership was changing and the schools were in transition, struggling with increased State mandates, rising costs, and a lack of community funding. Sarah and we had minimal success with efforts to meet her needs. We were unable to move and Sarah chose not to go to a private school, due to the boarding requirement.

Sarah's friends began to choose different paths by the end of middle school. She tried to "blend in" by trying on different personas, and then she sought diversity on purpose in an attempt to bring attention to her right to individuality. Minimal extracurricular activities were available to promote new friendships and a sense of belonging within the school community.

Our daughter had instinctively pulled away from us and grown closer to her sister—four and a half years older—with whom she shared family values, past experiences, and meaningful conversation. She found acceptance and safety within the relationship.

Sarah was still optimistic the high school would open up opportunities. She practiced the entire summer for team try-outs since sports historically provided well-organized activities for friendships in the district. A few months into her freshman year, she found courses unchallenging and her peers now adjusting to newly acquired freedoms. She was constantly hazed and humiliated by older team players, and her involvement in a church group and a school club proved "pointless" as both were disorganized with no apparent goals. Sarah's sister also had left home to start her first year in college.

The impact of her repeated effort to reach out resulted in negative, not rewarding experiences. Sarah fought fiercely for a sense of belonging, and without the daily support of her sister, her anxiety and frustration increased. She became increasingly withdrawn and we sought help; I felt the potential for suicide was real and that she should be professionally monitored. I deliberately chose a woman therapist who was soft-spoken and gentle, since Sarah did not respond well to abrupt adults. I shared my despair with a good friend of mine; I had a good cry.

"I feel like a fly on the wall," Sarah stated. Restricted thinking, an unresponsive environment, and social isolation had taken its toll. Under the circumstances, I believed depression was inevitable.

A Word on Professional Assistance
At the time Sarah entered therapy she still respectfully vocalized the inconsistencies she observed: among family members, our parenting versus the parenting of her friends, peer interactions, as well as teachers' methods of instruction.

The therapist felt strongly that due to Sarah's expressiveness and maturity, though only 14, she should be seen alone without a parent present. Communication regarding our daughter's progress and the manner in which issues were addressed was spotty at best. Before long, our daughter became increasingly inexpressive and hostile at home. She scrutinized and criticized family members and loudly resisted authority. Her frustration and impulsivity increased when there was conflict with peers at school or she did not get her way at home.

The headway we made at home appeared undone after each visit with the therapist. I finally realized that reflective, talk therapy served to only further increase our daughter's anxiety and frustration. We ended sessions after Sarah made a series of poor personal choices within one week and had little idea why. Upon parting, the therapist said she had empowered Sarah too much. We believe she had unintentionally enabled Sarah's negative behaviors, diminishing our authority and her emotional bond with family members. Much later I asked my daughter if the therapy had helped her and she replied "No."

I prefer an educational approach; Sarah was seeking solutions. We stepped up our efforts, continuing to draw upon her amazing problem-solving abilities. Pleasant past experiences and a close family provided her with resiliency, which was key to her recovery.

My greatest fear was that resulting negative behaviors might be carried into adulthood: namely, resistance to authority, conflict avoidance, a lack of awareness of her impact on others, and withdrawal under stress. She had built a "bubble" around herself—insulating her expressiveness, sensitivity, and warmth—as protection against the teasing, rejection, and overall unresponsiveness of the environment.

Growth Takes Great Patience
Sarah's depression, like mine, occurred when she was in a situation beyond her control where there was no apparent solution or escape. She and I both share a strong sense of self, an easy temperament, and are capable of handling many tasks at one time. Our "go with the flow" temperament along with great empathy made each of us susceptible to depression. The warning signals that indicate when well-being is threatened are often ignored or suppressed.

I personally avoided a depression by transferring to a private high school that met my needs; however, the "inevitable" arrived with a brief depressive episode in my early twenties, never to be repeated. Sarah was aware of this. "I might as well learn now," she stated.

To begin, we assisted our daughter with recognizing signals and discovering positive ways to temper her sensitivity so she did not have to surround herself with a "bubble." Her initial efforts were rewarding, opening the door once more for independent development of additional positive strategies. We assisted her with identification of gifts and balancing her strengths so they did not become weaknesses. Current district leadership has also permitted flexibility in her coursework to ensure intellectual stimulation, and implemented initiatives within the school to promote a respectful learning environment. I feel confident future depression for Sarah is highly unlikely.

Parental Involvement: Assisting Sarah in Discovering "Why"
Reducing anxiety and stress:

A required 2-week period of reflection to diminish the bombardment of incoming information and inconsistencies. This brought the structure and quiet needed to rejuvenate and clarify thinking. Reintroduction of stimuli was gradual in order for Sarah to learn how to compartmentalize information. Academics were a lifeline and "de-schooling" would have been detrimental. She attended school, but we limited peer contact to 30 minutes on the phone, and no Internet except for school projects. Interestingly, she did not use the phone nor did she use the computer.

During anxious and inexpressive periods, I maintained contact through physical touch—backrubs, hugs, etc.—allowing my daughter to initiate any conversation. Sometimes it became hard for me not to initiate conversation, but I did my best.

Once de-stressed, she was asked to think about those things in all areas of her life that did not appear to be working for her.

Recognizing signals for emotional self-regulation:

Sarah admitted she often ignored her intuition. We worked on listening to "gut feel" as it is an early warning sign of possible "flooding" as well as those situations academically or emotionally that could potentially create frustration or anxiety. Warning signs are indications that well-being could potentially be threatened.

The "red flag alert." When Sarah appeared disorganized or emotional, I pointed this out as a warning sign that required an "attitude adjustment" (self-adjustment to her reaction) or that she needed to kick in her problem-solving abilities to create options. Verbal expression and sharing a concern was encouraged, but to preserve her independence Sarah had the freedom to privately weigh possible factors and make that decision for herself. She now calls her own "red flag alert" and asks for our assistance only when she is unsuccessful in resolving something on her own.

Right to privacy was maintained.

We promoted sensible exercise and healthy eating habits.

I suggested ways to alleviate stress, but allowed Sarah to discover the methods that worked best for her: favorites included quiet time or a nap, music, reading, a warm bath, backrubs. She requires solitude each day.

Finding a passion:

As she had withdrawn from activities, we required that Sarah choose one activity of interest to pursue. Her first activity was rather solitary: music lessons. After a few months she switched to horseback riding, and has since found camaraderie with others who share her love of the sport.

Sarah expressed mathematics was important to her, so we located a mentor—a successful gifted woman—who takes her beyond classroom work. They have a healthy bond that is rewarding for each.

Identifying gifts:

Intellectual and personality characteristics are called "strengths," not gifts. Her strengths were often misunderstood and perceived as weaknesses by educators less secure in their teaching or staff lacking knowledge of GT characteristics. Also, those outside the family were often too demanding and very hard on our daughter due to her advanced abilities. I asked my daughter for an assessment and politely reminded instructors of her age if she felt they were too demanding.

I used expressions from literature that indicated what Sarah experienced was not uncommon for creative, bright individuals. One of my favorite expressions is Goethe's "Everything in moderation," and several passages found in Letters to a Young Poet by Rainer Maria Rilke, which I read to her.

Sarah reads books focused on the motivation behind an individual's behavior.

We respectfully pointed out those individuals, family members and extended family who appeared to manage their strengths successfully and unsuccessfully to assist with self-identification and balance.

We share with Sarah the difficulties our strengths created for us growing up and the resulting behavior patterns we struggle with as adults.

Learning to grab the riches and manage conflict:

We used daily experiences, positive and negative, to brainstorm and practice problem-solving. We suggested the selective use of humor on occasion to defuse a tense situation.

Sarah began to feel less restricted by looking at various options, regaining a sense of control over her life. Finding options in a restrictive environment is challenging, but can be done with parental assistance.

Discussions surrounding her choices that might be considered "bad judgment" focused instead on "good choices based upon fulfilling those needs she deemed important."

It has been a tremendous help that new district leadership is validating and systematically addressing many of the concerns Sarah voiced over the years. We openly discuss the limitations of the school and the community, but focus on the positive improvements we each observe.

Sarah is accepting and working within limitations, and has become involved in a task force created to promote respect, and recognize student and staff achievements within her school. She is positively channeling her strengths, particularly her great empathy for others, through volunteerism.

Accepting strengths:

Self-acceptance is evident when laughter and well-being returns.

References

Rilke, R. M. (2000). Letters to a young poet (J. Burnham, Trans.). Bradford, England: New World Library.

Author's Note
I would like to thank Gail Larsen for her support and compassion as we talked about talents and gifts of our daughters.

The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented

Research-based Resources

On-line Resources

Newsletters

Research Team

Resource Links

Underachievement Study

Confratute

Mentor Connection

Graduate Programs in Gifted Education

Schoolwide Enrichment Model

Project M²: Mentoring Young Mathematicians

Project M³: Mentoring Mathematical Minds

Reading Study (SEM-R)

Renzulli Learning System

Parent Resources

News & Views

Best-of-the-Best Enrichment Materials Database

www.gifted.uconn.edu

Neag Center for Gifted Education
and Talent Development
2131 Hillside Road, Unit 3007
Storrs, CT 06269-3007
Tel: (860) 486-4826 Fax: (860) 486-2900

Tamara Fisher's Blog

Her hobbies include drawing, hiking, fourwheeling, and building houses. (She lives in a house she built herself.) In this blog, Fisher discusses news and developments in the gifted education community and offers advice for teachers on working with gifted students. "

Unwrapping the Gifted

By Tamara Fisher

Tamara Fisher is a K-12 gifted education specialist for a school district located on an Indian reservation in northwestern Montana and president-elect of the Montana Association of Gifted and Talented Education. With Karen Isaacson, she is also co-author of Intelligent Life in the Classroom: Smart Kids and Their Teachers. Her hobbies include drawing, hiking, fourwheeling, and building houses. (She lives in a house she built herself.) In this blog, Fisher discusses news and developments in the gifted education community and offers advice for teachers on working with gifted students.

« In Their Own Voices | Main | Seeking Teachers for Gifted Children Part 2 »

Seeking Teachers for Gifted Children

Hello, everyone :o) I apologize that it’s been awhile since you’ve heard from me. You may recall from my last post that I was in the midst of organizing and hosting our annual state gifted conference. It was a huge undertaking, but a very valuable one. Aside from wearing myself out that week (two or three hours of sleep each night, working 18-20 hours a day on conference tasks), I ended up getting sick after it was all over. Go figure ;o) So I am finally working my way back out of the swamp! I will make up for lost time with you in the coming weeks and months.

A few months back, I was interviewed by two different people who each asked me essentially the same question: What makes for a great teacher for gifted children?

The first interview was by Michael Shaughnessy of EdNews. The second was by a college student studying Education, a future teacher who is already asking important questions about the gifted students she will encounter in her classroom. I thought that I would expand upon my answer to their question for all of you here, as many of you are either parents of gifted children trying to find the right placement for your child, or are teachers trying to find the right way to reach these interesting students.

If you are a teacher, chances are extremely slim that you learned any extensive information about or strategies for gifted students when you were in your teacher-prep classes. If you are a parent of a gifted child, you can almost count on your child’s teacher having learned as of yet very little about the unique learning needs of gifted students. The frustrating reality is that most teachers enter the classroom for the first time with almost no background knowledge about the unique academic, social, and emotional needs of gifted students, let alone any strategies for reaching and challenging them in the classroom. It’s not that they don’t want to know. Of our thousands of higher education institutions in America, only eighty-one of them offer coursework in gifted education (such as programs for a minor, a Masters, or a PhD). It seems the standard amount of exposure that most pre-service teachers have to information about gifted students is one single hour in one class. Thankfully, there are exceptions to this less-than-bare-minimum standard, but it still remains the scope of coverage for the vast majority of our pre-service teachers. Yet inevitably, these same teachers will have gifted children in their classrooms, gifted children the teachers are now ill-prepared to adequately understand and challenge.

All teachers have the capacity to become great teachers for gifted kids, and the factors that make for such a teacher begin with understanding and accommodations. This means that the teacher has developed (or is developing) an understanding of gifted learners, their academic needs, and their social and emotional needs. That understanding is then followed by appropriate accommodations. Once the teacher understands where the gifted child is coming from, the teacher then validates that by making targeted, appropriate curricular accommodations for that child. What these kids need most is for us to recognize and acknowledge their learning needs and then DO SOMETHING about it. A very ineffective teacher for a gifted child would be one who said, "You have already mastered this year's multiplication curriculum, but I still want you to do the same worksheets as everyone else because it wouldn't be fair to the other kids if I let you do something different."

It sounds absurd, I know, but sadly it happens in classrooms across our country every day. Who it's really not fair for is the gifted child whose learning is being *stunted* in that sort of situation!

A great teacher for a gifted child is one who is knowledgeable about gifted learners, is able to assess the child's zone of proximal development, and is prepared to take the steps necessary to move the child on from that point. As a nation, we need to make great improvements in preparing our teachers to do this.

It's not that most teachers don't want to do this for the gifted children in their classrooms. They very often do. It's just that we haven't always given them knowledge of or access to the right tools with which do it. Those tools are out there (things like curriculum compacting, acceleration, telescoping, etc.). We need to overcome the barriers that prevent our teachers from using these tools. Those barriers can be things like an inflexible structure or schedule, misunderstandings and misinformation about gifted learners, a focus (rightly so) on raising the floor but forgetting at the same time to lift the ceiling, and the mistaken belief that gifted children will make it just fine on their own (few people know, for example, that up to 20% of drop-outs test in the gifted range). Our gifted children have just as much right as any other child to LEARN in school. A great teacher for a gifted learner is one who understands and acts upon this principle.

I would add that gifted children do seem to appreciate certain traits in their teachers beyond what I have said above. If the teacher is curious, has outside interests, shares his or her talents with the students, and is honest when he or she doesn't know the answer to a question (but is willing to find out), the gifted students will have additional respect for that teacher because they so deeply relate to curiosity, passionate interests, and the humble desire to further one's knowledge.

So, what further advice do I have for all the teachers out there who want to remedy their lack of prior knowledge about gifted students? First, make some effort to understand these kids… continue to learn about them, to learn about what school is like for them, and to consider just how different their learning abilities actually are. Since schools typically don’t offer professional development about gifted students and gifted education or differentiation strategies, any teacher wanting to learn how to better serve these kids is likely going to have to take the initiative to seek out that knowledge and understanding on his or her own. Your state gifted association probably hosts a conference each year aimed at helping teachers (and parents) with precisely this issue… learning more about gifted students and how to better serve them. Other great conferences that have an in-depth focus for learning are EduFest in Boise, ID, and Confratute in Storrs, CT. Second, I would also encourage you to read books, ASK QUESTIONS, and visit some great sites on the web, such as HoagiesGifted, SENG, and A Nation Deceived. And last but most important, talk to the kids. Ask your gifted students about their school experiences. Find out how much of the day they are challenged and how much of the day they are repeating information they already know. Ask them what it’s like to be gifted in school today. Often, hearing it directly from them is all the impetus needed to propel us on to further change.

Welcome to the journey :o)

Posted by Tamara Fisher on May 8, 2008 4:57 PM

*************************************************************************

'No Child' Law May Slight The Gifted, Experts Say

By Daniel de Vise
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, November 25, 2007; C01

Some scholars are joining parent advocates in questioning whether the education law No Child Left Behind, with its goal of universal academic proficiency, has had the unintended consequence of diverting resources and attention from the gifted.

Proponents of gifted education have forever complained of institutional neglect. Public schools, they say, pitch lessons to the broad middle group of students at the expense of those working beyond their assigned grade. Now, under the federal mandate, schools are trained on an even narrower group: students on the "bubble" between success and failure on statewide tests.

Teachers struggling to meet the law's annual proficiency goals have little incentive, critics say, to teach students who will meet those goals however they are taught.

"Because it's all about bringing people up to that minimum level of performance, we've ignored those high-ability learners," said Nancy Green, executive director of the District-based National Association for Gifted Children. "We don't even have a test that measures their abilities."

A study published last month by two University of Chicago economists, analyzing fifth-grade test scores in the Chicago public schools before and after enactment of the law in 2002, found that performance rose consistently for all but the most and least advanced students.

"We don't find any evidence that the gifted kids are harmed," said Chicago economist Derek A. Neal. "But they are certainly right, the gifted advocates, if they claim there is no evidence that No Child Left Behind is helping the gifted."

Giftedness is a catchall term for children with abilities beyond their years. Students in the Washington region are generally screened in grade two, identified by grade three and competing for slots in specialized magnet programs by the upper elementary grades.

Local debate about gifted education centers on the concept of "differentiation," an education buzzword that describes how teachers, particularly in the elementary grades, are supposed to serve students of mixed abilities in a single classroom.

In recent years, school systems have gradually embraced the notion that all students, including the gifted, should study in regular classrooms. Alternatives, such as putting gifted children in separate classrooms or schools, or pulling them from regular classes for bursts of enrichment, are widely rejected as undemocratic.

"Gifted education is not something that should be done by another teacher down the hall; it should be done by every teacher in every classroom," said Marty Creel, who oversees gifted education -- and works with a particularly vocal community of parent advocates -- in Montgomery County.

Regional education leaders point to the success of their school systems as a whole, and to the region's superior Advanced Placement programs, as evidence that all children are learning and that gifted education and No Child Left Behind can coexist. Test scores are up. Expansive, well-funded gifted programs in Montgomery and Fairfax enjoy national reputations. Complaints, they say, come from a disaffected few.

"The truth is that we're showing a lot of success with the method that we're using," Creel said.

To properly serve gifted children, particularly in reading and math, teachers are expected to divide classes into small groups according to ability -- one group at grade level, for example, one above and one below -- and pitch lessons to each in turn.

The problem, parents say, is that many teachers aren't differentiating. Under pressure from No Child Left Behind, critics contend, educators are more apt to teach one lesson, trained on students in the middle, and to expend extra effort on those at the bottom.

Education leaders say that differentiation is effective when done correctly and that any capable teacher can do it. Research supports the practice, although studies show gifted children can also thrive in programs that group them by ability in separate classrooms.

Robert Slavin, a Johns Hopkins University researcher, found that achievement can rise for all students when teachers "regroup" students by ability within a classroom or in separate classrooms. Grouping students across grade levels -- with children sorted by ability, regardless of age -- is particularly effective. The challenge to educators, Slavin said, is to avoid "the negative aspects of ability grouping": low expectations for students in low-ability groups.

Some gifted education scholars are leery of the trend toward serving gifted children in mixed-ability classrooms. They consider the mixed-ability classroom a particularly difficult way to teach gifted children, because students might span a wide range of abilities and because gifted students learn differently than other students.

"You have now made every teacher a teacher of the gifted, whether or not they're trained to do it, whether or not they have the ability," said Joyce VanTassel-Baska, executive director of the Center for Gifted Education at the College of William & Mary in Virginia. "I would be remiss as an educator to not suggest it's a very challenging kind of model to deliver on."

Several organizations are studying the impact of No Child Left Behind on the best and brightest students. Their work is hampered by a dearth of evidence. Few states have tests that measure the progress of students who are working above grade level.

In the past five years, the share of students in elementary and middle schools scoring advanced, the highest of three performance levels, on the Maryland School Assessment has climbed from 18 percent to 26 percent. The share scoring at the middle level, proficient, has risen from 39 percent to 48 percent. Education leaders say the rise in advanced performance illustrates the effect of gifted education. Advocates for the gifted counter that the results are irrelevant because the statewide exam tests students only on grade-level work.

Montgomery education leaders point to MSA scores and other "data points" as key to invigorating gifted education in regular classrooms. They have begun monitoring several measures -- including advanced performance on the statewide test, participation in advanced math coursework and AP performance -- as a way to track gifted education in schools.

Parent advocates applaud the effort, but they would like to see other changes, including an explicit curriculum for the gifted that states what is to be taught by grade and subject area. Many parents would like to see gifted children regrouped, for at least part of the school day, with students of similar abilities in separate classrooms.

Already, students across the region are grouped by ability in high school honors and AP classes. Elementary and middle schools now routinely accelerate upper-grade students in math. Most middle schools offer accelerated courses in one or two core subjects.

There is a point, educators note, where regrouping becomes tracking. Tracking, or assigning students to classrooms by ability, has been mostly abandoned for concern that students would be labeled bright or slow based on standardized test scores. Gifted programs reflect an ongoing tension between parent demand for separate classes and pedagogical concern for equity.

Some systems, including Arlington County's, serve all gifted students in mixed-ability classrooms. Others, including those in Montgomery and Fairfax, steer only the most advanced children into separate classes. Prince George's and Howard schools continue to offer traditional "pull-out" gifted instruction.

The key to making such programs equitable, educators say, is that accelerated classes be fluid, with teachers monitoring progress, moving students regularly and tirelessly recruiting historically underrepresented children into gifted study.

At New Hampshire Estates Elementary School, one of the highest-poverty schools in Montgomery County, some students are pulled from their classrooms daily to study reading or math at two different levels of acceleration. One program, called Plus, is for children who are two or more grades ahead. The other, Nurture, is for those with potential who might be hindered by language difficulties or economic circumstance.

On a recent day, in one room, a teacher placed math flashcards into blue circles on the floor and asked students to decipher how she sorted them. In another, students played a game akin to Twenty Questions to deduce the contents of a wooden box. A class of second-graders has published a newspaper article about the recent visit of a goose to the athletic field.

"We have a safety net for kids who need a safety net," said Liz Fasulo, a reading teacher. "But there's pretty much no limit at the other end."

S.P.A.C.E.

Info from AGATE

Advocacy for Gifted and Talented Education in New York State

Tamara Fisher's Blog

Check out the blog>>>>>> Unwrapping the Gifted

By Tamara Fisher

Seeking Teachers for Gifted Children

©2010 TeacherWeb, Inc.