Shortchanging the Gifted

Through differentiation of content, pacing and grouping, schools can address the pressing needs of highly able students

Academic programs for gifted students aren't what they used to be or what they could be with appropriate support and resources.

As I travel around the country on speaking engagements, I observe the significant and often disheartening changes in programming for gifted students in the '90s. Pullout programs have virtually disappeared in many states. Any program for gifted kids that is associated with the word "special" is rejected as elitist, a word that appears to have the power in and of itself to bring an end to a program serving the gifted.

In addition, programs for gifted students are sacrificed as nonessential in the name of budget crunches, at the same time as the appropriated funds for students with other exceptional educational needs are greatly expanded.

The most significant explanation for the disappearance of gifted programs is America's democratic devotion to the concept of egalitarianism. This term is unfortunately interpreted to mean that everyone should get exactly the same educational experiences, instead of everyone having an equal opportunity to actualize their learning potential. Before making crucial decisions regarding the place of gifted education in 21st century schools, educators' vocabulary, beliefs and expectations should be reviewed.

Defining Vocabulary

The term "gifted" has rightfully been expanded to include students with exceptional abilities beyond academics into the areas of the fine arts, leadership and bodily-kinesthetic skills. There already are ample opportunities for students with gifted ability in nonacademic areas to express their talent in special programs and competitive events. Students whose gifts are in the academic areas have just as much need to experience learning opportunities that truly challenge their exceptional abilities. We need to be less concerned with the label of gifted and more willing to advocate that all children regularly experience challenging learning environments.

Our nation's schools also have encountered persistent calls for equity and excellence. If we define equity as equal opportunity for all students to learn at their challenge level and excellence as opportunities for all students to reach their own learning potential, maintaining appropriate programming for gifted kids is justifiable.

If we define gifted as an expression of ability that exceeds the expectations for age-appropriate learners and define learning as forward progress from one's entry point into a learning curve, it becomes obvious that those students who already know what is about to be taught will not be learning as much as those students who are novices in that same content. Unfortunately, those who already have learned the grade-level standards often are perceived to be "done," as though they were cooked to perfection.

Gifted students need different educational opportunities so that they can actually learn in classes that are geared for age-appropriate learners. Therefore, nothing special is expected, even though something different may be needed.

The final vocabulary issue surrounds the concepts of enrichment, acceleration and extensions of the regular curriculum. For many years, activities for gifted students were labeled enrichment. The accompanying assumption was that only these learners could benefit from an enriched curriculum or program. Of course, we now realize all students deserve an enriched curriculum. However, only exceptionally capable students consistently need extensions of the regular curriculum or acceleration into a higher level of content.

Walking the Talk

Your school or district has made promises to parents, as stated in mission statements that include phrases such as:

* "All students will be challenged in the curriculum they encounter."

Any parent has the right to ask this question of all their children's teachers: "What evidence do you have that my child is working at her challenge level in your class?" All teachers have an obligation to answer that question--and that means that teachers must know how to provide learning experiences that stretch students' existing capacities. To offer a "one size fits all" curriculum is inadequate. Oregon, for example, has expressed this concept uniquely, asserting in statewide legislation that all students are learning at the appropriate "rate and level." Notice, the word "gifted" is not mentioned.

* "All our students will be expected to actualize their learning potential."

Actualizing one's learning potential is not as easy as it sounds. It cannot be done until the teacher knows how to challenge all students to move into uncharted waters. Gifted students often don't come close to their learning potential, especially when they are "given" high grades for work they know took little to no effort.

* "All students will enjoy high self-esteem as an integral part of their schooling experience."

Self-esteem actually is enhanced when success is attained at a task that had been perceived as difficult or challenging. Development of high self-esteem requires that students be allowed to challenge themselves in an environment in which their mistakes and struggles, as well as their successes, are encouraged and appreciated.

When students receive kudos for products they know required little or no effort, their self-confidence is undermined, and they learn to find the easiest way out, postponing their exposure to challenge in many creative ways. Many really fear that if they try something challenging and are not instantly perfect at it, others might conclude that they are not really very smart after all.

Re-enfranchising the Gifted

There are at least three assumptions upon which administrators can begin a plan to re-enfranchise gifted students.

The first is that most classroom teachers and school administrators have very little training in meeting the learning needs of gifted students in heterogeneous classes. The second is that most teachers are currently drowning in a flood of expectations for accountability regarding progress for students who are working significantly below expectations. Third, present grouping practices may not provide appropriate learning experiences for gifted students. Let me elaborate.

Effective staff development can dramatically improve teachers' ability to work with their gifted students. Even better, any strategy a teacher implements for the benefit of gifted students helps other students as well. For example, for many years we have allowed gifted kids to represent what they learn in a project format. Naturally, they have considered their learning strengths when making those choices. But all students can demonstrate better learning outcomes in their strength areas, and many enjoy project work. In fact, everything that was pioneered in gifted pullout programs in the last 25 years now is considered state-of-the-art teaching in all classrooms.

Most teachers enter the field with absolutely no course work in how to recognize and teach gifted students. This reflects the general lack of awareness of and concern for the academic needs of gifted children by most teacher training programs, as well as a lack of attention from policymakers and politicians. Whereas both new and experienced teachers are highly likely to have had at least one college-level course in teaching special-education students, few of those teachers are even remotely knowledgeable about the exceptional capabilities and learning behaviors of gifted youth.

Therefore, most teachers are unaware that gifted students actually learn differently from age peers in three important ways, according to Barbara Clark, author of Growing Up Gifted. First, they learn new material in much less time; second, they tend to remember forever what they already have learned; and third, they perceive ideas and concepts at more abstract and complex levels than other students their age.

Since so few teachers are aware of these realities, their behaviors toward gifted students are likely to reflect stereotypical beliefs. The first of these beliefs is that gifted kids are highly productive students who should always get high grades. They will, as some put it, "make it on their own" without much assistance from teachers. This belief is related to the myth that students who are not productive in school cannot be gifted.

If there is one overriding frustration among gifted children, their parents and empathetic teachers, it is the issue of whether the student will do his or her work. This frustration arises from what I call "the confusion of pronoun syndrome." I rarely have met gifted students who won't do "their" work. What they usually resist doing is the teacher's work.

Gifted children actually would be thrilled to use school time to do their work, which I define as learning something they don't already know. This concept is somewhat shocking to most educators, who never have considered the notion of "Whose work is this, anyway?" Content and pacing differentiation are vital to ensure that gifted students can get to "their work" on a regular basis.

To accomplish this, teachers might offer students a chance to demonstrate previous mastery at the beginning of a unit of study, perhaps as part of a strategy I've designed called "Most Difficult First." The teacher designates a small part of an activity she thinks is the most difficult and invites students who can accomplish it with neatness and accuracy to demonstrate their ability and then move on to more challenging extensions.

The second belief is that gifted students' work always should be neat, beautiful and excellent in all forms. Many teachers find it difficult to juxtapose the notions of highly intelligent with highly messy and completely disorganized. Professionals in gifted education slowly have come to realize that such profiles may actually describe the existence of learners who are "twice exceptional." These are gifted youths with a learning disability, attention deficit disorder or some other learning challenge. These students often are described as "absent-minded professors," students who can verbalize magnificently, but who refuse to write anything down. And even if such a student is not twice exceptional, the presence of messy work is often a sign of frustration over being expected to do tasks that hold no challenge for the learner.

The third belief is that gifted kids always should want to "go for the gold"--that is, be excited about going above and beyond the expectations for age-appropriate learners. Many teachers offer work for extra credit and are perplexed and frustrated when some gifted kids don't take advantage of the opportunity. Parents often encourage this practice by asking teachers to give their kids more to do at home in the evenings, weekends or over the summer months. No rational person, at any age, willingly does more than others are doing simply because more is better. Teachers need training on how to provide truly differentiated learning options.

Preparing Teachers

Gifted students need compacting and differentiation. Compacting is the practice of condensing the regular curriculum for advanced learners to allow them, at the beginning of any unit of work, to demonstrate previous mastery or their ability to learn the required material at a faster pace than age peers.

In order for compacting to work, teachers need to learn how to develop and use appropriate differentiation activities that stretch gifted kids' minds into more abstract and complex types of thinking. When students need acceleration of content in addition to or in place of extension, a different type of intervention is indicated. A student might then experience content or grade-level acceleration by working with older students for some of his learning time.

Many teachers worry there simply is not enough time available to them to accommodate gifted students' needs for compacting and differentiating the curriculum. My experience in teaching teachers how to accommodate gifted students in mixed-ability classrooms confirms that once these educators learn how to challenge their gifted students in ways that do not create unmanageable burdens, they are more than willing to make the necessary accommodations. For instance, during training sessions I demonstrate how much planning teachers can accomplish in 20 minutes or less when working with their peers. This technique could be used in their schools--if they just offer to bring chocolate to the planning sessions.

A matter of intense concern is classroom management. In order to try something different with their students, teachers need to know that the technique will flow smoothly in the classroom and will be relatively easy to manage. Considerable professional development time should be spent demonstrating methods that help students understand exactly what they are supposed to do on a given day in class. Teachers need specific instruction on ways to maintain necessary records and documentation. Ways to help students improve their own organizational skills and take more responsibility for managing their independent work time should be included in the training.

Teachers appreciate methods that allow them to spend time regularly with students who are working on differentiated tasks so those students don't feel abandoned by the teacher and so they know help will be available for them when they need it. I recommend that working conditions be carefully described and discussed with the students, so they understand the consequence for failing to follow these procedures is to return to the teacher-directed group for the balance of the chapter or unit. All students should have opportunities to re-qualify in each new unit of work.

Finally, gifted education specialists and administrators need to plan ways in which teachers can continue to support each other as they work to implement compacting and differentiation opportunities in their classrooms. (By the time teachers leave a professional development workshop, they should have concrete plans about which strategies they will use and how they will manage those options.) The research on staff development concludes that lasting change is more likely to happen when teachers have peer support during the entire implementation process.

I strongly encourage the formation of school-based study groups, led by teachers already comfortable with the new approach, and open to all interested teachers in the building. Meeting together at regular intervals during the school year, teachers select methods to try in their classrooms, help each other with implementation and have group discussions on the pros and cons of each method.

Without such a support system at a school, teachers who attempt to use methods they have learned in a workshop are likely to abandon that method as soon as they encounter any barriers to success. With the study group members available to each other, the likelihood of being able to work out glitches as they occur is very good and the likelihood of lasting, effective change improves substantially.

A Heavy Burden

The second assumption that will help administrators address the needs of gifted students begins with a deep awareness of the heavy responsibilities their teachers have regarding progress for students who are working significantly below expectations. As many states insist that these students take the same tests as students who are average or high achievers, the cry has gone out, "Get those test scores up for the lowest achievers." Most educational decisions, therefore, focus on that goal.

If low-achieving students don't do so well in homogeneous classes, we place them in heterogeneous classes. If mixed-ability classes are better for struggling students, it is reasoned, they also must be better for gifted kids--so they too are placed primarily in heterogeneous classes.

To compound the problem, we often use the academically advanced students to help their less capable peers raise their achievement levels. These practices have been the source of intense frustration for gifted kids and their parents. With the advent of alternative schooling methods, such as home schooling and charter schools, many of our most capable students have left public education. If we don't do something to keep them with us, the top 5 percent of the students will no longer come from the 95th to 99th percentiles.

Totally heterogeneous grouping practices do not automatically provide for the needs of gifted students, Many gifted kids do not thrive if they are purposefully separated from each other so that one or two can be placed in each class as role models or leaders. When gifted kids are grouped together for part of each school day they are much more likely to demonstrate their capabilities because they have others like themselves who can validate they are OK just the way they are. Furthermore, new leaders emerge from the other 95 percent of the group when the top 5 percent are placed somewhere else.

Fulfilling Promises

The programs we should seek for gifted learners are those that deliver the promise made by most schools: to provide consistent daily opportunities for challenging learning experiences for all students. This goal automatically requires differentiation of content, pacing and grouping practices for the most capable students.

These opportunities are always available for students who struggle to learn, so the precedent is in place. Since gifted learners are just as atypical from average as are kids with learning problems, the differentiation they need is highly defensible.

Susan Winebrenner, an educational consultant, can be contacted at 160 at Riviera Drive, Brooklyn, Mich. 49230.

COPYRIGHT 1999 American Association of School Administrators
COPYRIGHT 2004 Gale Group