Talented or Gifted, Part II

The twin practices of grade leveling by age and of teaching to standards create the need for special programs like 'Talented and Gifted' by imposing on each successive age cohort of unsuspecting students the convenient (for the grownups) assumption that all children should learn the same things at the same rate .

The result is the delivery of a chaotic and largely ineffective educational experience to all but the 30% of students who are reasonably close to this imaginary 'average'. The 70% of students who fall hopelessly below or ridiculously above this 'ideal' trajectory experience everything from discouragement to boredom to outrage at the misalignment of their abilities with the curriculum. The majority of students are willing to troop along, stay out of trouble, and enjoy those classes and activities that tend to be geared toward achievement (athletics, music, various clubs and competitions) rather than age or grade level. Those on the more extreme ends of the 'curve' (for lack of a better word) tend to wind up in the hands of special programs where it often feels like more hours are spent planning and debating than instructing.

One important (though largely unconscious) function of special programs is to legitimize the mainstream programming the creates the need for them in the first place. They imply that there must be something amiss with the student and never call the general classroom practices into question. So far it is working like a charm. There are raging debates about how much special education costs, and wars within special education regarding best practice. There is constant litigation regarding the rights of parents and the obligations of schools. And what none of this furious activity ever gets around to is questioning the practices that create 90% of the need for special education in the first place.

The same dynamic is a play with Talented and Gifted education, minus the money and most of the litigation. The would-be Talented and Gifted lobby lacks the emotional appeal and the sheer weight of numbers to prompt much political action, but there is little question that the general curriculum in most schools is as inappropriate to the intellectually capable students as it is the those who are the least able. Feeble, unfunded legislative suggestions (it would be hard to call them mandates) hint that something ought to be done if only anyone had some notion of how to proceed.

What is the primary need of Talented and Gifted students? It is to be unfettered from grade level expectations all day, every day, without the need for meetings, plans, tears and threats. They need to be able to walk through the door and access their own appropriate 'next steps' in their educational journey. How did this become a mystery and why are we always only on the verge of solving it?

There are only two barriers, as I see it, to the vast majority of gifted students accessing a great public school education.

First, the culture of public education is such that all students are 'supposed' to undergo the same age/grade-level curriculum at the same time unless the proper forms and filled out, meetings attended, consensus reached, authorizations issued and documents signed. Gifted children need more than anything else to spend time in a room with someone who is versatile, able to create on the run, think on his or her feet, innovate, make rapid and sound judgments. Instead Suzie gets a clumsy committee process that has nothing educational to offer except to those students seeking the patience of Job. The end result of the process varies from place to place and from parent to parent. It almost never leads to higher achievement but tends to focus on 'enriching experiences'...experiences that would be enriching for almost all children and have little to do with the particular needs of Talented and Gifted children.

The second barrier, which sometimes supports the first in a destructive way, is the discomfort that some teachers experience in the presence of an extremely intelligent student. This results in limits to what a gifted student is able to achieve within the structure of the school environment. The result is that a gifted student is hampered by the need to find a mentor, an outside expert, to provide guidance outside the school setting.

It is my experience that multiage classrooms and multiage teachers easily overcome both of these barriers. And because they dismiss the grade level myth out of hand, they are inclined to support whatever sorts of learning beyond the standard curriculum are appropriate to each child. Multiage practice is extremely demanding, and teachers who embrace this practice are risk takers. They are thinkers...planners...schemers...often dreamers. They delight in work that takes an unexpected turn and that exceeds all reasonable expectations.

I believe that the Corbett School and Corbett Charter School are intellectual playgrounds for gifted teachers and students. This is equally true at all grades, and it takes a unique twist at the high school level. Corbett students can complete a year or more of their college education without ever leaving the high school campus and without sacrificing the companionship of their classmates. And their classes are taught entirely be those teachers that they already know and who know them.

One quarter of the high school students in Corbett School District are taking AP Calculus this year. This number includes about a half dozen 9th graders. None of these students were placed Advanced Placement classes as the result of being "Identified" as Talented and Gifted (it occurs to me that you don't have to be 'identified' if people already know you!) or attending committee meetings. It was just their next step. In the case of the 9th graders, they took Algebra I in elementary school, Algebra II with a middle school teacher in 7th grade, precalculus with the high schoolers in 8th grade, and just kept moving along with no particular fanfare. It's just school. Corbett students progress in reading and writing according to the same logic and students have done advanced work in English, Science and History as early as 9th grade when it seemed like a good fit.

40% of Corbett's graduating class of 2009 earned AP Scholar designation (they passed three or more AP exams) prior to graduation. In most Talented and Gifted programs, earning AP Scholar recognition would be a reasonable goal for the participants. But obviously 40% of the class wasn't identified as TAG! So with all of this going on, how can you tell the Talented and Gifted students from the rest? My own strategy is to look more closely at results. 40% of the class passed three or more exams with a score of 3 or higher.

The top 10% of the class (more than would typically be identified as talented and gifted) passed an average of 10 exams each, placing them in the top fraction of 1% of the Advanced Placement program participants. I don't know if that Talented and Gifted, but it will do.

Giftedness often doesn't feel to parents like a 'gift' at all. It is tempting for students to wish (and I've hear more than one do so out loud) to just be 'normal'. Schooling can't alleviate all of the hassles that can come with possessing exceptional ability while attending schools that are preoccupied with 'meeting standards'. But schools can be organized so that the most able students benefit from, rather than having constantly to fight against, the status quo.

Highly able students walk away from Corbett Schools with evidence of exceptional achievement and with the support of an expert adult community. They leave having gained admission to selective colleges and universities and with thousands (or tens of thousands) of dollars worth of earned credits. They receive significant financial aid in support of their undergraduate pursuits. And they leave with an extraordinary K-12 education.

Giftedness should be experienced as a gift and not as a struggle against institutional rigidity. Although there will always be challenges that come with seeing the world through the eyes of an exceptional intellect, schools themselves should be safe harbors and not sources of additional frustration.