George's article (the first article we read and blogged on) made the case for heterogeneously grouped classrooms and differentiation as the delivery model. We all nodded and agreed with him and we wrote and discussed all the points that resonated with us.
Thompson's speech seems to be the antithesis. Does he, too, have a point? Is there a middle ground? Would ability grouping ever be the better choice? Did Thompson make any points in his speech that might have you reconsidering the needs of the gifted students in the regular ed classroom?
Paul George's article is about differentiated instruction in a heterogeneous classroom in order to accomplish successful learning. I am not sure exactly what George means by a heterogeneous classroom. At times, he is talking about a social-economic mix in the classroom and then he is talking about a learning ability mix in the classroom. Only in a couple of places does George mention gifted learners. On the other hand, Thompson's speech is clearly all about educating the gifted. He is advocating grouping gifted together in order to provide the necessary level of rigor. I believe that George and Thompson are both right. A student who is a gifted artist should be with other gifted artists. However, when the bell rings and they go to their math class, the gifted artist could benefit from the heterogeneous classroom. And there is the common ground. Programs for gifted learners in one area must accommodate those same learners in areas were they are not so gifted.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the recurring theme in Thompson's speech that gifted education is under attack. His speech was given in 1998. What would Thompson say in 2008 when the country's economy took a down turn and school superintendents were looking a ways to cut costs? My school was under attack when it was reported that several superintendents were considering that they would stop sending students to our school in order to save money. It seems that one of the first places to cut costs is in gifted education.
Bob,
ReplyDeleteWell said. The system is fundamentally flawed when it comes to gifted ed. It is not popular to continue to give to those who have so much already...a wealth of riches situation. Gifted students, it is commonly believed, are fine, will be fine and require no help. Okay. I agree especially when we are really talking about the minimum profiency tests at the end of the year. Absolutely, GT students will pass them. But is that really the point?
Until schools and teachers are forced to provide academic growth for ALL students, this will continue to be the norm because this is the only measure of school effectiveness and success.
I was really excited to read this article as I have heard the “All children are gifted” in my own school and I wanted to hear what someone in the Gifted Community had to say about it. As much as I agreed with George’s article last week, I do think that Thompson makes a very good point too. I do not believe that all children are gifted. I do believe that all children have gifts like Thompson states in the article. I agree with Thompson that gifted children would do better in schools where they are with other gifted children and are being challenged accordingly. Much like the schools Betsy and Bob teach in. However, there is only so much a public school system can do with the money that they receive. Therefore, in my mind we have to find a middle ground for our gifted children to be successful. Right now with the resources that we have or are offered I think clustering (5-6 students) gifted students into classes and then differentiating instruction is the best way we can serve them without sending them to a special school for gifted children.
ReplyDeleteI do think that we don’t do enough for our gifted students now. Budget cuts have to happen but gifted programs should not be the first to go or should not bare more cuts than other programs just because the students will “get it” no matter what happens. Gifted students will no excel if we do not challenge them. We need a shift in our thinking about gifted children.
In a perfect world I think that all gifted children should have the ability to attend a school like Betsy’s or Bob’s no matter where they live or ability to pay to go there, but that just isn’t going to happen anytime soon. So the best alternative has to be this middle ground. Now, is the middle ground perfect? No! Many gifted students even in cluster classes still do not receive differentiated instruction. I can speak of a cluster class in my school that the teacher did the exact same thing with her gifted children that she did with her non-gifted children. The parents never complained and the teacher said that they meet with the TAG teacher three times a week and that was their instruction. I was so mad when I saw what was going on in that classroom. So there is even work to do on what and how the middle ground should be handled in my opinion as well
I agree! There is so much work to be done to make certain that differentiation is happening, that it is quality instruction and that teachers have the training and resources to make it happen!
DeleteWhile heterogeneous grouping in the classroom is beneficial to all students for various reasons, I wish that gifted students had more opportunities to receive instruction that caters to their academic/rigor needs during each school day. The attitude that they will "pass the test" with or without us is frustrating to me. Too often these students are waiting for the rest of the group to catch up on a worksheet that takes them minutes. Because of scheduling and budget constraints, they have to wait all week to have the gifted teacher come in for about an hour two afternoons a week. Even then the instruction provided includes the whole (heterogeneously grouped) class. So as usual the attention goes to the struggling learners. The "bubble" kids are sent to other classrooms to receive specialized direct instruction suited to their needs, why don't the gifted students deserve the same opportunity? Every classroom teacher in my school was trained to teach corrective reading to help with our reading scores, yet there is no school wide training for teaching gifted students. I think the gifted students should receive instruction at their level daily, like the "bubble" students; not just two times per week. I think pulling them out of the heterogeneous classroom and grouping them together for part of the day would benefit them greatly. Giftedness is a special need, it means these children have needs that can't be served in a heterogeneous setting all the time. No one complains about other special needs classrooms being elitist. I wonder if the people who say "everyone is gifted in their own way" would be okay with "everyone passing the SOL's in their own way".
ReplyDeleteIn some locations, GT falls under the "exceptional child" umbrella...meaning that their needs are not effectively serviced in the regular classroom. I think that there are varying levels of gifted just as there are varying levels at the opposite end of the bell curve. The further from the median you travel, the more special the instruction needs to be.
DeleteI’ve read Thompson’s article three times now, and each time, I find myself saying “Yes!”, out loud, and have written “Love it!” at the top of the paper. While I enjoyed the George article, and saw many good points in it, as I was reading, I kept asking myself, “Where does the gifted learner really fit in to this plan?” By contrast, my heart connected with what Thompson has to say. Having gifts (which everyone does) is not the same as being gifted. He laments the fact that society supports athletic genius far more that it supports and values intellectual genius. In reflecting on the two articles, I looked back at the questions we had to answer after reading Chapter 1 in our textbook. I got to thinking about the questions – What kinds of learners are least well served in your school? What kinds are most effectively served? If my school did not house one of the center-based gifted programs, the answer to the first question would be the intellectually gifted learner. As Brooke and Krystle point out, clustering gifted learners in heterogeneous classes often does not give them what they need to excel. Thompson states, “Gifted children need educations that would defeat and obstruct many other students, and other students need educations that stop gifted students, leaving them bored and defeated.” Because the public schools focus on passing state standardized tests, the heterogeneous classroom teacher, even a well-intentioned one, will at some point have to spend most of her time and energy getting the at risk students to a place where they are more likely to pass the end of year tests. The gifted learner is forgotten, because they will have no problem passing the test. It takes time, energy, teamwork, and resources to plan and employ rigorous curriculum for the intellectually gifted learner. The economic pressures that face localities are affecting what public schools can do for these students.
ReplyDeleteI really like what Bob has to say about reaching a middle ground between the two articles. Even gifted children are not gifted in every subject, and would benefit from learning and sharing in a heterogeneous class. His point seems to be most valid in a secondary setting, where each gifted learner can be grouped with similarly gifted students in a particular discipline.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI also really enjoyed Thompson's article and it did make me think. I agree that not all children are intellectually gifted. We want to acknowledge that each child has gifts that make him or her special, but to say all children are "gifted" is not accurate. As a society we feel the need to be PC and worry so much about equality that we say everyone is gifted.
ReplyDeleteThis article made me think back to our discussion in class about the learners that are most effectively and least effectively served, as I notice Betsy mentioned as well. My response was that the ESL and gifted students are the least effectively served. The "bubble" students are the ones that get all the extra tutoring, Pals tutoring and stay for extended day, whereas we have one ESL teacher for all the ESL children at our school (I have 2 in my room- so they get seen once a week for about an hr). At our school we have the SPACE program for our gifted and talented learners. Students are referred by their 1st grade teacher and tested at the beginning of 2nd and can be referred each year at the end of the year to be tested. I have one student that goes out for SPACE, for an hour and half most Thursdays (if the teacher is not busy testing H.S). The rest of her "gifted education" is left up to me.
I do agree with Thompson that "heterogeneous cooperative learning does not offer a sufficient differentiated program for gifted children." Yes, I try and provide her with ways to extend her learning, computer time, have her serve as a peer tutor among other things, but I really don't think she is being challenged and provided the opportunity to explore her gifts the way she should be able to in just the hour and a half a week that she gets to be with other gifted students. I agree with Brooke that their should be school-wide training in teaching gifted students and that gifted students should meet with other gifted students for more than the hour and a half a week they meet at my school.
After reading Thompson’s article, I can now see valid points between his article and George’s. I thought George’s was good from the standpoint of “exposure” to all children. This hit ideally close to home with me, since I do not teach a G/T “cluster”. I found with my little guys that it is hugely beneficial for everyone to have exposure to “challenges” or “critical thinking” opportunities. But reading Thompson’s article and honing in on simply gifted children, I can see where his points too are imperative. That, and the “way” in which he wrote his article/argument had me locked in and interested. He definitely did a great job “selling” his point, through his comparisons to everyday life and repetition to help emphasize and get you thinking about what he truly was saying.
ReplyDeleteFor instance: “everyone is gifted in their own way”. He kept repeating this phrase, even changed it around a bit, and then compared it to everyday things, such as: height, being brunette, even exhaustion. The way he emphasized “everyone” and “in your own way” opened my mind to just what that means, the more his argument had success in winning me over. Everyone has the ability to be challenged, everyone has the ability to use critical thinking, everyone has the ability to learn through exploration, etc., etc. (which goes back to my take on George’s article), but Thompson is right, that does not mean that everyone is gifted in their own small way. I can now see how this response is used in a defensive or sympathetic way as well. Because honestly, we teachers have been lectured to and brainwashed in wanting equity for our students, where everyone is capable of learning and where everyone deserves opportunities; that instead of seeing it on differentiated levels, we summarize it as being equal because everyone needs it (if that makes any sense).
Just as differentiation is a critical factor for special ed students, it is just as critical on the other spectrum for gifted students as well. Just as Thompson stated: these students too are at risk. So should education be about age or need? I have seen this theory work both ways. My cousin skipped a grade early on in school because she was “gifted” (she attended private school), but as she went through the awkward social years of middle/high school it seemed to have backfired and hindered her more in confidence. So developmentally I see why education focuses on age, but if education was to alter this based on need, instead of allowing one or two students along the way (like my cousin) then maybe the gaps in what the student needs intellectually, as well as developmentally would be filled. It’s something I sat here and thought about…what would our schools be like if we didn’t worry about age, but instead need? Would it work? Would it reach the needs of every child just as we want with differentiation? Is it the ideal definition of differentiation? I don’t know, just something about this had me daydreaming a bit.
Overall I really enjoyed this article. I think Thompson presents his argument in a very relatable, almost common sense and comical way. Definitely had a lot of “ohhh”’s going on in my head!
Yayyyy!! My response stayed this time...and didn't disappear into internet space. :)
DeleteEveryone is 6 foot 4 in their own way.
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed this article and found it to be a great way to continue my introduction into this course of study. I think the argument that some people use “Everyone is gifted in their own way”, what people really want to mean is that all people are unique and have different needs, in their own way. But this does not mean that they are all gifted learners, who require differentiated instruction to meet their needs. And needs that are just as important to meet as those with other special needs, whether they be intellectually or physical. It’s our job as teachers to meet the needs of all learners as best we can.
I really liked Thompson’s analogy to Rembrandt. He sure was gifted. But would his potential be met in a US school today? Would his exceptional needs be met? I doubt it, sadly. And don’t get me started on the way schools value art and creativity. I think that today’s schools undervalue the importance of providing quality differentiated instruction to gifted learners. As Thompson points out, they are considered “at risk” if their exceptional needs are not being met. It seems to be the tendency of most schools to simply focus on the “needy” population, and if a student is academically competent, their needs are considered to be met. I hate this about our schools system. Thompson brings up the point about “fairness”. I think that this is a great argument, because of this “fairness” notion, quality differentiated gifted education is not happening. I am thankful for taking this course to help me become a better educator to these children, but all schools should provide some kind of training to educate teachers on the importance or the “condition” as Thompson calls it, of giftedness, and the “need” of these learners.
Thompson concludes his speech with what feels like an argument for homogenous instruction for these gifted learners to address their exceptional needs. These learners need differentiation that not all learners need: faster pacing, more complex subject matter, etc. Both Thompson and George make incredibly valid and thought-provoking arguments. I think these were excellent choices in the beginning of our study. I think that this powerful argument by Thompson makes perfect sense, but then paired with George’s argument about the importance of different types of learners interacting with each other as a important social offers an interesting point as well. Great article!
A response to “All children are Gifted”
ReplyDeleteI read this article and breathed a sigh of relief. After reading the George article on the other hand, I was stressed out completely, so this was a welcomed read! The analogies used by Thompson were enlightening and absolutely made sense. Although I do agree with differentiation in the classroom, we cannot let those gifted children just sit there bored and uninterested.
Thompson states, “...education should not be about age; it should be about need.” If special education students get this type of education, why don’t gifted students? Special education students come to my class with a huge list of weaknesses, strengths, present-level of performance data, accommodations TO MEET THEIR NEEDS, etc. Why do special education students get this, but others don’t?
We need to change the legislation to “NO GIFTED CHILD LEFT BEHIND” because that’s indeed what we are doing. Thompson goes on to explain the type of education gifted students need. They need “...instruction that responds to their extra curiosity, to their urgency for meaning, to their advanced vocabularies, to their interests in complexity, to their fast comprehension, to their vast memories. The SOL’s do not allow for flexibility to go beyond the “need to know” information. Gifted students can either pass the test before a unit starts or after hearing it once know it. They need the “higher-order thinking activities that give their abstract minds a workout.” These kids should be tired from working hard in school, not tired from being bored and uninterested.
A response to ‘All children are gifted’
ReplyDeleteWhile I was reading Thompson’s article, several things occurred to me.
1) Am I really doing enough for my gifted students, or are they bored and checked-out half the time? Thompson made me question and evaluate how I have been differentiating in my own classroom. We have talked about “starting small” in class together, but is that a disservice to my gifted students? With such a large range of abilities in my own classroom, I find it so difficult to differentiate in terms of compacting when I need to, rigor when I need to… especially when we are programmed to follow pacing guides, curriculum maps, etc.
2) Where in the world would we get funding for heterogeneously grouped gifted students when we can barely afford one gifted specialist in each elementary building, and I am fighting to keep my classroom position?
3) What about the underachieving gifted students who don’t want to rigor and fast pace of the classroom that Thompson is describing? I certainly have some of these! It is painful to get quality products from these students. I wonder what life would be like for these particular students in a homogenously gifted classroom. While I know they are capable, they certainly do not always show it!
And 4) This is what is fundamentally flawed in our education system! I agree Jana – the further you are away from the curve, the more special and education must be. This article reminded me SO much of a recent video I watched that I highly recommend:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDZFcDGpL4U&feature=youtu.be
Like this video states, we are doing things “the way they did in the past” and with the “assumption that the most important thing they have in common is how old they are” – as in heterogeneously grouping students based on age, no matter what their needs are, because we have bigger fish to fry – performance based evaluations, standardized testing, NCLB, etc. In reality, we need to go in the exact opposite direction and “change the paradigm” – or the way we think about education.
In reading the Thompson speech I too agree with the notion that all students have gifts, but not all students are gifted. What should programs for the gifted look like? Does every gifted child need the same things? Gifted Education is a form of Exceptional Education, these students require more than what the regular classroom is providing. There needs to be differentiation, but this needs to be based upon the needs of the students. My teaching experience has been in Special Education where there is a continuum of services and we base the services each child receives on their needs. Gifted children require a rigorous program that allows for growth. Every child needs to end the school year with growth!! Some gifted students will do well within a heterogeneous classroom with a wide variety of abilities with a teacher skilled in differentiation. There will be gifted students who would thrive within a high ability cluster with gifted students making up a large part of the group, while there are gifted students who will need even more rigor and need to be in a more specialized gifted program.
ReplyDeleteAs a parent I find myself hoping that my daughter will ‘get in’ to the center based program for our area when she enters 4th grade. Last year she was the only kindergartner at her school that was found eligible for gifted education. Her programing involves being pulled out once a week from her general education classroom to work 1:1 with a gifted resource teacher and whatever her regular education teacher can provide in class. Last year her general education teacher refused to see that Emma was gifted and did not provide her with any differentiated work. We had a lot of behavior issues last year with her refusing to do anything the teacher said. This year is much better. Emma has a teacher who is skilled in providing more differentiation for the class. This differentiation is better; however it still is not matched to Emma’s ability (especially in reading). We still do not know her real guided reading level. I can guess based on her PALs testing this year, but her school does not regularly assessment guided reading levels (in the fall her level was end of 3rd and mid year it was end of 5th). Her reading group is working on levels J-M during class. What I want for my little girl is for her to continue to grow and thrive in school. My husband and I feel that for her a center based program would be best for her because of a more rigorous program and high expectations. Emma is one who will do exactly what is expected of her, and she has learned that in the regular classroom she does not have to work that hard.
We need to look at each of our gifted children and find what they need to grow. Not every gifted child will need the same programing. Gifted children all too often are left to their own vices and are lost in classes where they are not growing, bored, and withering away. With a continuum of services our gifted population would be able to thrive. But alas this would require more teachers and planning for the gifted, something that cuts in education are eliminating. Our brightest students are our future and we need to foster their growth!!
My response to the article "All Children are Gifted," was WOW! I not only teach these bright young minds but I have an invested interest in the classroom experience that I want my son to have. Yes, I believe that every child is unique and it is only through all different types of exposure that they come to understand what their gift is. In the classroom it is the low achiever that everyone is worried about and so much time is spent on getting that child caught up that often the higher child is not considered because he/she is doing just fine. I don't want that statement to be made about my son, he does seem to soak everything up like a sponge and hasn't encountered anything that is too hard for him, but he has such an enthusiasm for learning and questions everything, and I don't want to see that fire go out! I also feel that the resource teacher in charge of collaborating with the regular ed teacher should not be in charge of so many other components at school. Ours is head of school improvement and schedules all the watchdog dads, among other tasks i'm probably not aware of. Her time should be spent focusing on the teachers and students she services.
ReplyDeleteOverall, this article makes me want to do more for my students, give them the opportunity to make choices so that they can find out and be aware of the type of learning they like best. I want them to feel safe and special! Love to Learn!
A response to “All children are gifted”
ReplyDeleteI agree with Thompson’s points as well. While the heterogeneous grouping can be beneficial to the masses of our students, preparing them for the “real world”, I guess we can all look in our elementary schools and see that the needs of our gifted learners are not being met. Their needs are so specific, so individualized and require lots of effort and planning on the instructor’s end that it is a reasonable argument that these students should be educated together as oppose to being bored out of their minds in a regular education classroom. They need the kind of support we provide to our other special needs’ kids. Even then, with funds and support, it would still be a huge challenge! I think back on my experiences with one student in particular, who was identified gifted while in my class. He reminds me of the “carnivorous pantyhose” kid. It was my first year teaching 3rd grade when I was moved to a new school right before school opened. I had no time to prepare for the new grade, and some of the social studies content (specifically the West-African Empire of Mali) was something I knew nothing about and really had to learn the material as I went. This little guy could literally could have taught the class, and probably could have done a better job that I did delivering the material! He was fascinated with Mali and had extensive knowledge on virtually everything about it. I looked up the Mali facts he was reeling off to the class, and that little booger was right about everything! He was 8. Talk about a wake-up call for me. I, at 31 years old, with advanced degrees, was left feeling so inadequate as his teacher. How in the world was I to challenge this kid? How could I teach him about things that he knew more about than I did? How could I get ahead enough to prepare for him, AND get the rest of the class including 4 far below grade level and 3 bubble kids to pass their first SOLs? I did the best I could, but it still didn’t feel good enough to be what that student deserved. It’s a very real challenge that so many classroom teachers face today. So, Thompson got it right- everyone is special and has needs and gifts, but every student is not intellectually “gifted”. Sadly, those who are, are slipping through the cracks of our current public education system. What would bring about change to get the required support to truly educate these students? I wish I knew, so next time one of those little darlings walks through a classroom door, teachers like me are ready!