How the US is neglecting its smartest kids

An article from the Finding Schools/ School's Choice Website

 http://findingschools.blogspot.com.au/2015/08/how-us-is-neglecting-its-smartest-kids.html

. Due out in September, a new book by Chester E. Finn and Brandon L Wright, Failing our Brightest Kids, raises the topic of the inability of our education systems to realize the potential of highly capable students.  Some states identify gifted students, but are not compelled to serve them.  Further, there is not much research demonstrating exactly what works best for gifted students.  Acceleration?  Enrichment?  Extracurriculars?  The author notes that highly capable students are actually a diverse group.  There is no, one-size-fits-all strategy that that is the educational solution for this entire cohort. 

The current debate in the field centers around gifted children vs gifted education.  Should efforts focus on learning strategies that will help gifted kids realize their potential?  Or is identification of gifted students more important.?  Considering the latter, there is no, unique definition of “gifted.”  Definitions vary among states and certainly among countries. 

When centering the discussion on gifted education, educational standards, quality, and methodology are the elements to take into account. Assuming adequate standards and high quality, what methodology is effective?  Giftedness may be addressed in different ways.  Typically schools form homogenous groups of gifted students in self-contained classrooms or pull-out programs.  Heterogeneous classrooms use differentiated instruction to meet the needs of capable learners.  It is important to note that offering simply an enriched curriculum is short sighted.  In fact, the highly capable cohort is comprised of individual learners, each with a unique profile.  Dr. Joyce Van Tassle-Baska called this out in her Myths About Gifted Students:   “They have even profiles in respect to intellectual ability, academic aptitude, and social emotional development.” In fact, each gifted student is different and must be viewed as a unique learner. 

Application of the principles of differentiated learning is no small task.  This requires extensive teacher training, flexibility, collaboration, metrics analysis and agility.  Assuming good implementation of this classroom strategy, the curriculum should offer appropriate challenges, strong content and exercises in higher order thinking, connection-making, meaningful product development and opportunities for  acceleration.  Current best practices in gifted education favor the most heterogeneous grouping with high quality differentiated curriculum. 

Regarding gifted students moving among states or countries, it is important to review policies and definitions.  Likely home and host countries/states will have different understandings of giftedness and gifted education.  Policies will vary.  There may be special identification processes.  To assure goodness of fit, families may consider gifted schools and clarify how the student will be assessed and/or investigate best heterogeneous grouping school options. 

Focusing the discussion on identifying gifted children may just label the child, overlooking the ultimate goal of getting the best out of each student.  It is more important to label gifted programs than to label children as gifted.  Giftedness should be seen as potential.  This conveys a dynamic sense of possibility, far from a static labeling process.  Gifted education must be preoccupied with responding to the students’ needs in order to develop their potential gifts and talents. 

Sara Schmidt
Director, Operations