GIFTED?

 

I hold a masters degree in Gifted Education. Deciding to pursue an advanced degree in educating the gifted was nothing more than an impulse, one of those trendy education things. In the late 70s, you could focus your masters’ work on any number of Ideas that Seemed Important at the Time. Oddly, the coursework and people I encountered made me wary of formal programs for the gifted, rather than an advocate.

Editorial pieces speaking up for the gifted appear regularly, proclaiming that we are ignoring our most promising students, whose prodigious gifts could solve our toughest social and economic problems. Here’s a recent example , from the Atlanta Journal- Constitution.

There are three issues around gifted education in schools that still bother me:

First—identifying giftedness in kids is an exercise akin to nailing jello to a board. Drawing the line between “gifted” and “not gifted” is often an exercise in parental politics as much as determining appropriate instructional practice. Shall we say that 5% of the kids in any school are gifted? By what measure? Tests? Which tests? Teachers are notorious for missing or misinterpreting signs of giftedness. Do our brightest kids do better when they’re labeled and separated from their peers? The identification process often amounts to restriction of resources based on some pretty shaky premises and indicators.

There also isn’t much evidence that we should count on academic superstars to fix our social problems. Being brilliant intellectually is no guarantee that your entrepreneurial spirit or emotional maturity will support leadership, innovation or problem-solving—in any realm. A quick look at our most gifted leaders—Americans whose work has saved or enriched millions of lives—tells us that being identified as “gifted” is never a prerequisite for world-changing discoveries or great statesmanship.

Finally (and most irritating)—it’s common in support-the-gifted screeds to read about endemic boredom among the academically talented. My response: any child who is chronically bored in class is unlikely to be truly gifted. Gifted children are sometimes mentally out in left field, immersed in their current passion, or cleverly plotting a revolt against drill and drone in the classroom. But bored? Almost never. Who could be bored in a world with so many fascinating things to do and learn? Boredom in the classroom is a function of lack of curiosity, creativity, and initiative, things that the gifted have in abundance. If all the pupils in a classroom are bored, it's not only the gifted whose potential is being wasted.

Challenging smart kids should be part of every school’s mission, but only because maximizing their ability is the right thing to do.

Comments

[Roberta Braverman]

Obviously Nancy Flanagan hasn't met or worked with many gifted children, nor was her Masters Degree or coursework taken seriously. She notes it was an impulse. I invite her to my classroom to meet my students and to see a valid gifted program in action with kids who not only want to learn but thrive in an appropriate and challenging setting.

Ms. Flanagan must never have watched a child "do time" confined to a general, age grouped classroom that repeats previously mastered skills, focuses attention on remedial students due to federal requirements to meet standards, and ignores the academic needs of children entitled as any to learn new skills and content in school.

PLEASE do not publish what you do not know. I am a volunteer advocate for a statewide and national group, and a veteran teacher of gifted students for 3 decades. My passion for children who deserve attention and programs to meet their needs comes from experience.

Saying what each district should do and making it so are miles apart.Why not test your theory on our star athletes? Do not perpetuate the myth that schools can and will do all well for all children. By doing so you continue to deny gifted students the opportunity to reach their potential through our public schools. If laws protected and money followed the gifted child and the education of their teachers, we might see far more "bang for our buck" in areas of growth and achievement.

I look forward to hearing from others on this topic.

[Nancy Flanagan]

In my 31 years in the music classroom, I have taught hundreds of gifted and talented children. I also took my coursework in gifted education very seriously, even if the decision to enroll in the program was made on impulse; one required class was dedicated to "identifying the gifted." After 32 90-minute classes, I still have no solid, measurable definition of giftedness--and I think that's a GOOD thing. There is a wide range of human gifts and talents, and boxing kids with labels is as counterproductive at the high end as the low end. Renzulli himself notes that creativity and persistence are as important as measured ability, but I have yet to see a school program that honors persistence above the IQ score.

I also love teaching bright, capable children. What I especially love is challenging kids at all starting points to stretch and reach their potential. I am not "publishing what I do not know". I am reflecting on long experience in working with all kinds of kids and questioning the idea that we are wasting bright kids' potential when we do not offer special "gifted" programs. Many times, we don't even recognize potential when it's sitting in front of us.

Saying that gifted kids are denied the opportunity to reach their potential in public schools, and assuming that gifted kids are "doing time" in classrooms where the attention goes to remedial students denigrates the efforts of excellent teachers everywhere to differentiate instruction. Gifted kids can get a great education in everyday classrooms. The key, of course, is the teacher--not the "program."

All kids suffer when teaching and instruction do not meet their needs. The wasted potential of an average student (if there is such a thing) is just as tragic as the wasted potential of an academic superstar.

[Kathy Jones]

I, too, hold a masters degree in Gifted Education. Deciding to pursue an advanced degree in educating the gifted was deliberate on my part--much more than an impulse, not a trendy education thing. The coursework and people I encountered made me wary of the lack of understanding of those who denounce the need for programs for the gifted, and I became an advocate for all children with gifts and talents.

Editorial pieces speaking up for the musically gifted appear regularly, proclaiming that the nation is ignoring our most promising students, whose prodigious gifts could enhance our social and cultural void.

There are three issues around music education in schools that still bother me. Maybe Ms. Flanaghan can relate.

First—identifying music talent in kids is an exercise akin to nailing jello to a board. Drawing the line between “ a gifted musician” and “a not gifted, but very talented musician” is often an exercise in a numbers game instead of determining what would be appropriate instructional practice tailored to the needs of each student. Shall we say that 5% of the kids in any music class are gifted and should be in the show choir? By what measure do we determine this? Auditions? Competitions? Schedules? Tests? Who the parents are? American Idol? Teachers could miss signs of music talent if all students are not assessed at various times in their educational career with multiple measures. Don’t the students with the best voices need to receive specialize instruction to reach their potential? How do we separate those from the students with the potential to develop their musical ability? The identification process is often based on the restriction of resources.

There also isn’t much evidence that we should count on music superstars to fix our cultural problems. Being brilliant musically is no guarantee that your entrepreneurial spirit or emotional maturity will support a career in music. A quick look at our most successful musicians— Americans whose work has enriched millions of lives—tells us that being identified as “a gifted musician” is never a prerequisite for being a superstar.

Finally (and most irritating)—it’s common to read about endemic boredom among the musically talented when they are asked to focus on theory and repeat scales over and over. My response: any child who is chronically bored in music class is unlikely to be truly gifted. Musically gifted children are sometimes artistically out in left field, immersed in their current passion, or cleverly plotting a revolt against drill and drone in the music classroom. But bored? Almost never. Who could be bored in a world with so many fascinating things to do and learn? Boredom in the music classroom is a function of lack of curiosity, creativity, and initiative; things that the musically gifted have in abundance. If all the pupils in a music classroom are bored, it's not only the musically gifted whose potential is being wasted.

I just don’t understand educators who don’t want every child to reach his/her potential. I don’t understand what the fear is of helping each child to be challenged and allowed to “learn something new everyday.” Unfortunately, the general classroom teacher is not trained to meet the needs of learners with extreme needs—on both ends of the bell curve. That is way specialized programs with specially trained teachers are provided for these learners.

[Nancy Flanagan]

Very clever, Kathy.

Still--my three points hold (in spades) for the very talented in music. Identifying giftedness in music is usually more about early advantages given by parents than recognition of natural ability. I've had dozens of student musicians go on to study music at the university level, but my most famous grad is a kid who was, by all accounts, a middle-of-the-pack drummer until he caught fire in the 11th grade. He never made it to Honors Band or Interlochen, but is a wildly successful studio percussionist in LA these days. And my best musicians LOVE scales. They challenge themselves to learn new forms, transpose using step patterns, and play them ever faster and more accurately. That's because bright kids understand the power of practice and drill--to other kids, it's just drudgery.

I guess I am resisting the idea of "deservedness" here--the concept that while all kids need instruction suited to their needs, the gifted deserve it more. I think it's dangerous to give kids the impression that, because they're quicker learners, they're somehow justified in complaining about boredom, or a slower pace. Although I am a gifted musician myself, I happily sing low-level music in my church choir. And so I expect my most talented HS kids to happily play easier, fun music with their peers in the marching band, while choosing challenging, professional-level literature for contest.

Look--I was like you. With my degree, I served as "gifted coordinator" for years, in the district and on county-wide committees. I used to write articles like the editorial in my original blog, defending the need for special programs for the gifted. Eventually, I began to look harder at the evidence. I saw "non-gifted" kids (especially late bloomers) achieving at very high levels. I saw "gifted" kids being satisfied with their special placements, and somehow losing their passion for learning, once they were in the Honors section. I sat around countless tables with stacks of paper trying to sort and select kids into special programs. I have bookshelves full of "brain booster" curriculum enrichment, and have fought the accelerate vs. enrich battle on both sides.

Eventually, I got weary of it. A large part of my job ended up being "sort and select" and parent pacification. My special training in working with the gifted worked equally well with the so-called ordinary kids--maybe better, especially if I told them we were doing something that was designed for "gifted" musicians. And I still cringe when I hear kids whining about being bored.

Nancy

[Roberta Braverman]

Well, this has surely sparked a few hot feelings. Thanks for the opportunity to dialog.

Please do not misinterpret what I meant. Gifted students do not deserve more than others at the cost of others' education, they deserve at least an equal shot, a challenge in any area of their gift: musical, athletic, and yes, even academic. All studnets have talent, as I think I interpreted your "nature v. nurture" comments, but gifted is truly a matter of degree, not how they got there. Let's use time to the greatest advantage and stop wasting time of kids who want to / need to learn. The "doing time" quote came from a student referring to his third grade general education math class.

Unfortunately, the "differentiation" term is often used loosely. I have met hundreds of educators who say they are doing it and who do not get the concept. They think more is different, or just taking a child to the next skill or level, as in some AP classes who have instructors who've never been educated about the special social and emotional needs and psyches of gifted children. They've missed the concepts of depth and breadth. In defense of my public school colleagues who've never been taught how, and who are held accountable through NCLB, especially for the growth of the remedial, and who are taxed with class sizes too big and on too many levels to be effective, with little help... the problem is not an easy fix by saying we are differentiating. And I have seen Dr. Renzulli's theories bastardized by schools doing type one enrichment for all and stopping there, saying they are doing gifted.

I served as an expert witness for a school district where a parent was suing. The resolution request was that no children should get serviced due to the fact his child was not considered for the program. It seemed in your post that you are suggesting that gifted programs should be eliminated because we are missing the almost gifted. The administrative law judge found with the district because it was an issue of public posting of nomination dates, and the requested resolution was unreasonable.

While I know that some programs are band-aids for a much bigger need, [aka an hour a week] and that we need to educate all teachers and administrators about effective practices, we need to hold onto and improve what we have and not lose ground. Specialists are just that, focused on the needs of one population. This is my chosen role. I even have advocacy written in my job description.

Regarding your personal peeve, my favorite expression to my students is "Boredom is in the mind of the beholder." Self entertainment is a skill easily lost in our culture. Creative minds do not always find the way to lead, innovate, or to improve our world. Too often they are stifled, standardized and whittled to make their square pegs fit into the round holes. Perhaps that is why so many families with means educate privately or at home. How many success stories have we read that children had alternative schooling? How many never made it to the headlines?

It is a shame we lose advocates due to getting weary. I am still fighting for kids and know many others who join me. Looking forward to more discussion on this.

Thanks again.

[Bonnie Cramond]

With all due respect, I believe that Ms. Flanagan's work in gifted education is very dated. For several years now, the emphasis has been on identifying talents and needs rather than kids. I think it can be pretty easy to identify which children need more accelerated, complex work in special areas and which do not--at that time. I agree that children develop at different rates, so we should be constantly looking at their needs. I think it is much like clothes--you wouldn't put a 2 year old in 2T clothing regardless of his size. And, you would watch for the clothes to be too tight, short, etc. to know when to go up a size. And a child who is tall will not necessarily have big feet, although there does tend to be some correlation. Though it is unlikely that a large child will ever be small in comparison to his peers, a small child who has not had good nourishment may experience a growth spurt in the right conditions.

I am sorry that Ms. Flanagan was so turned off to gifted education by the parents' demands. A friend assures me that the special ed parents are more demanding!

It would be nice to say that it is up to the teacher to do all that is necessary for kids at all levels, but it is just not possible. In some school districts, teachers can not even get higher level materials.

[Bill Ferriter]

I'm going to add a bit of fuel to this fire:

I've always been blown away by the number of students who end up being labeled "gifted" by school testing programs. I think I ran across one estimate that between 5 and 15 percent of all students earn "gifted" status after testing in many districts.

Is this really possible?

Are our standards too low for gifted programs? After all, organizations like MENSA don't allow 15% of the population into their circles.

Are we labeling really nice, really hardworking kids as "gifted" because it feels good for parents and looks good for schools/districts to have dozens of AG kids on their rosters?

And if we are, then what use is it to even have a "gifted" label?

Bill

[rebeccat]

I just have to jump into this. While I am very wary of gifted programs and the process by which gifted children are identified as well, the idea that gifted children are not bored in school is so far over the top that I just couldn't let it pass without comment. I didn't realize until I was an adult and passed the test for entry into MENSA that I would have qualified as "gifted" by most any measure. I come from a family of 9 and at least 6 of us would have qualified as "gifted" if there had been any program in our schools. WE WERE ALL BORED SILLY AT LEAST 90% OF THE TIME. It's all well and fine to talk about finding ways to engage all students at all levels, and no doubt music education affords greater opportunities for this than most. However, the fact of the matter is that most schools do offer kids a pretty narrow range of opportunities. Not only that, but they are often punative towards gifted students who refuse to go through the hoop and pony show. When I was in grade school, I was put in a lower level reading class because they had run out of room in the upper level class and my last name was at the end of the alphabet. For years I begged to be moved up based on my test scores and the copious number of books I read each week. I was always denied because my performance in my dreadfully boring language arts class wasn't good enough. When I got a perfect score on the language arts portion of the ACT, I wanted to go back to my old grade school and ask if I was performing well enough to merit moving into a more challenging class or if my refusal to do pointless worksheets was still all that mattered.
When my oldest son was in kindergarten his teacher complained all the time that he was disruptive. I agreed that his behavior needed to improve, but pointed out that the curriculumn wasn't appropriate or engaging for him and that might be adding to the problem. Despite asking repeatedly and finally going to the principal, she refused to do so much as give him a level appropriate worksheet to work on. After talking with other parents in our district about their experiences we decided to pull him out and now homeschool both of our boys.
The author claims that my kids wouldn't be bored in a regular classroom but what, I wonder, does she really think most teachers would do with a 2nd grader who reads at a 7th grade level and a 6th grader who's doing freshmen level work? Does she really think a teacher would have the time, energy or desire to teach my kid his algebra along side the percentages she needs the other kids to learn? Does she really think my kid wouldn't be board silly and would find a way to engage with work several years behind his ability?
The author asks who could be bored in a world with so much to do and learn. However, she is fooling herself if she thinks that our fascinating world and the average classroom have much in common. The problem isn't that gifted kids are bored with the world. The problem is that gifted kids are bored with spending their time in a classroom which allows so little room for interaction with or exploration of the world beyond the narrowly prescribed boundaries of the typical educational setting.

[Syb]

My very favorite thang in the whole gifted camp is when Howard Gardner and Supporters +discovered+ an eighth area of +multiple intelligences.+

Uh Huh.

Syb

[Nancy Flanagan]

Well, Syb. Howard Gardner's work was not necessarily about giftedness. Gardner's greatest gift (IMO) to educational thinking was pointing out that schools generally rely on linguistic and symbolic channels for learning and ignore other "intelligences".

I've always been interested in his theories about students who are gifted in leadership or gifted as self-perceptive. Ever known a kid who can easily be pictured running for the Senate in 30 years, even though his/her schoolwork is marginal? That's a kind of native intelligence, isn't it?

I would expect that Gardner and his acolytes will continue to explore new ways to learn, and probably theorize about additional intelligences. It is a theory, after all, and good theories ought to be subject to change. Shouldn't they?

[Nancy Flanagan]

Rebecca, thank you for joining the dialogue. The discussion certainly strikes a nerve. I find it interesting that the people who are reading and posting all have a personal stake in this fight: they either teach or coordinate programs for gifted, feel that they are personally intellectually gifted or that their children have exceptional learning potential. It's intriguing that we aren't hearing from what you call "regular" classroom teachers...or, for that matter, "regular" parents. Isn't it?

I want to clarify something first: I did not say that gifted kids were not bored in class. What I said was that boredom in school was not a sign of giftedness. Many children, at all levels of ability, are bored in school. They're bored because--for many reasons--they're not engaged with the work.

Sometimes, of course, it's because the curriculum or teaching methods are...well, quiet, slow and even dull. I have taught for 30 years, and can tell you unequivocally that the kids I work with today have been shaped by continuous exposure to a quick-cut, image-based delivery of content; some kids are bored in school because school isn't usually like television, XBox, IMing and YouTube.

What troubles me however, is that some children have been led to believe that it is their teachers' job to keep them constantly entertained and stimulated. Even a world-class teacher can't do that all the time. We must nurture more than intellectual acceleration in our children; they also need to learn to share the teacher's attention, work with other children who are not like them, develop the skill of solitary work, and appreciate personal qualities other than being smart.

I guess maybe some schools or teachers behave "punitively" toward gifted kids; I really haven't seen it much. In fact, most schools that I worked with as a specialist bent over backwards to get some kind of programming in place for gifted kids. As for teachers not being willing to work with your children, who can do work several grade levels above their age--well, if "grade level" represents achievement at the mean, then we should assume that approximately half of all students' work and potential is above grade level. Sharp teachers do provide curriculum and instruction that push and challenge students. I'm sorry that you didn't run into any teachers like that, but they're out there. In fact, much of the pushback against my GIFTED blog seems to come from folks who have big axes to grind against public schools, another interesting observation.

Your story about your ACT score proves my point that schools aren't very good at identifying the gifted; I think we agree on that one.

Finally, about this question (quoting): "Does she really think my kid wouldn't be board (sic) silly and would find a way to engage with work several years beyond his ability?"

Gee, Rebecca, I don't know your kids, but--speaking personally here--yes, I always looked for ways to push my students to the edge of their developmental ability. And this isn't just a music thing--I taught math for several years and usually had three or four groups going, relying on the HS teachers to help me provide appropriate and challenging materials. A couple of my 6th graders took 8th grade algebra, because I arranged it (and then spent first hour at the HS in grades 7 & 8, taking Geometry and Alg II).

Boredom is a two-way street. There are the efforts made by the teacher, to provide materials and strategies to meet kids' needs--but there are also necessary efforts made by the students to cooperate and sincerely engage in the learning process. Without effort and respect on both sides, we get boredom.

[linda]

no post for awhile here hope you all are still around. For all your education you are missing it. I am the mother of a child who is gifted in music and academically. In music it was obvious. Who needs to test a 5 yr old who sits down at a piano for the first time in his life and within half an hour of can play the wedding march, he had heard at his cousins wedding the week before? But they did test him in third grade and found him to be gifted. His first and second grade music teacher however scored him with average grades, informing me that he "just doesn't have musical ability." He also tested in state and national tests in the high 90th percentiles, 96th-98th n reading, science and math, and yes he was bored. Bored with the curriculum but never bored in his world. So of course he was labeled a trouble maker instead of being challenged. 20% of high school drop outs have at one time been tested as gifted; what percentile of gifted students drop out? No one has done that study that I can find but if 20% of all dropouts are gifted then the percentage of gifted dropping out is a much higher number. And you, with your masters degrees think they should be mainstreamed? No wonder my child who is now in seventh grade is failing out of school. And I have an IQ of 144 and went through the same thing 25 years ago and still there have been no improvements made.

[Susan Barton]

I live in England and am currently enjoying my Christmas holiday break, I have been reading all of your comments with great interest.

I have experienced boring lessons but generally find that the able students manage to find their own "entertainment" to alleviate the boredom. For example I have seen students in a mathematics lesson being taught algebra in the dullest way imaginable sitting devising games such as "teacher bingo" where they write down a list of the teacher's frequently used words on "bingo cards" and play it to entertain themselves. So it would seem that able students are able to entertain themselves and alleviate boredom in lessons in a creative way. However, were they learning any new and exciting maths to challenge, interest and engage them in a wonderful subject? I very much doubt it!

With regards to the statement: “Although I am a gifted musician myself, I happily sing low-level music in my church choir”. Nancy was clearly an amiable and well-behaved student at school keen to be obliging and content and comfortable with mediocrity. Mediocrity on occasions is bearable, however mediocrity on a daily basis in a subject that you love and want to “fly” in is sadly not!

Regularly at school I see students whose behaviour is deplorable due to intense boredom and a need to alleviate it. My pet hate is “copying” lessons, you know the ones where students are asked to copy a diagram/paragraph from a book (occasionally there is some element of slight challenge in being asked to rephrase the paragraph into your own words!) All teachers are guilty of this at some point. It is the easy, peaceful half an hour! For some of the gifted students, the obliging and well-behaved students (like Nancy would have been), this may be acceptable, for the gifted this is an absolute waste of time and I detest them.

Nancy may cringe when kids whine about being bored, to be honest she is right they are often not the ones to worry about, your truly gifted will not be bored, however they will also not, be learning anything new/anything at all from the teacher! They may well be engaged in some element of mischief or “entertaining activity”.

For example it might surprise you to know, I am not a teacher. I am 14 years old and I wrote all of the above whilst sat in my English lesson learning about metaphors. My teacher suggested I should pop onto the internet to research mixed metaphors (I think it was her attempt at stretching me), so I stepped up to the plate and grabbed the bull by the horns and did so. Unfortunately since I was bored I spent the rest of my lesson on the internet, looking for work for gifted students (which I am told I am) in order to find something more interesting to do, when I came upon Nancy’s “Teacher in a strange land”.

If you could all stop arguing about who has the most experience and is best qualified to know how students are thinking and feeling perhaps you should start listening to one.

I can assure you boredom is not the issue you should be arguing over, what should concern you is – why my teacher’s are frequently unaware of what I am doing, able to do or potentially able to do. Or even worse, if they are aware, which I suspect they are, why do they regularly deliver unexciting or uninteresting work, forcing me to educate, entertain and interest myself in lessons?

Teachers you have the responsibility to deliver truly personalised learning to all students. Lessons, at the moment, seem to be meeting the needs of the “average” student, support in class meets the needs of the “less able”, why is there not support in classrooms meeting the needs of the “more able”? It is because you expect us to put up with mediocrity, dull lessons or to entertain, educate or amuse ourselves – shame on you!

[Nancy Flanagan]

Dear Susan,

First--a spelling error. Next to last paragraph, first sentence: "teachers," not "teacher's." Just FYI, and irresistible for a...teacher.

Second--perhaps you should share these concerns with your teachers. If you feel that popping on to the internet to research mixed metaphors is a boring assignment, I'm sure your teacher would appreciate your taking charge of your own learning in constructive ways. I will refrain from pointing out mixed metaphors (not to mention back-to-back cliches) occurring in your post--search for them yourself.

Third--copying is boring for everyone, not just gifted students. One of the arguments that irritates me most is the assertion that very bright kids "deserve" exciting, open-ended assignments and other kids are fine with routine, mind-numbing tasks.

Fourth--many teachers do try to deliver personalized instruction to students across a range of ability. This may be more difficult than you think, especially when a teacher is dealing with 100+ students. Envying your less able peers (because they have special classes) is not a becoming character trait. Again, if you are a capable and precocious learner, figure out what you need and want to advance your studies, and ask for it.

[Susan Barton]

Dear Nancy

I do not envy my less able peers for their special classes, they do need them and I am happy for them to receive them.

I wonder is the need to correct my spelling and describe me as not having becoming character traits really necessary? It feels a bit like you are being patronising because of my age.

In fact it might interest you to know one way I have attempted to alleviate boredom is to ask if I can help teach some of my friends, which is something I enjoy, as do they.

I am a frustrated child and my frustration is because I cannot learn at the pace or the level that I am capable of because of my environment and some uninspiring teachers.

You are quite right that copying lessons are boring for everyone, however I believe I am the only member of my class who has complained. I read somewhere about turning copying lessons into a memory game – where you have 30 seconds to look at the diagram on the teacher’s desk then you go back to your chair to try to draw as much as you could from memory working in teams. The winning team was the one who remembered the most detail between them. I suggested this to my teacher, she replied, “I am not having all that noise I have got marking to do”.

I must say not all of my teachers are uninspiring and I do recognise it is a very difficult job, you do not need to feel defensive. However those who are fabulous do prove it is possible to inspire, no matter how many classes or students they have, providing planning is thorough and resources are used well!

Please, please can you explain to me why it is my responsibility to figure out what I need and want to advance my studies when I am only 14. Also when I try to do that, some teachers just want me to shut up anyway so they can get on with their marking or report writing?

Susan Barton

Dear Nancy

Susan is my daughter and I am very proud of her!

She is described by her teachers as “a delight to know” (because she is very loving and thoughtful), “gifted” (because of her abilities in all subjects, particularly mathematics) and “challenging” (because they don’t know what to give her to stretch her and they frequently have her asking them for more challenging work).

She wrote the above comments and asked me to post them for her. I am disappointed to say she was quite hurt by what she thought was criticism from you (14 year olds are very sensitive, and your comment about envy not being a becoming character trait upset her a lot).

I believe the uninspiring teachers who can’t manage 100+ students can learn something from some of Susan’s wonderful teachers who mange to inspire more than double that on a weekly basis!

Unfortunately I suspect it is the heightened contrast between these wonderful teachers and the uninspiring teachers that is the foundation of Susan’s frustration.

Susan does not believe she is more worthy than her less able peers, she has attempted to do as you asked: “figure out what you need and want to advance your studies, and ask for it”. She has done this on behalf of all of her classmates (i.e. the alternative to copying example she suggested). When this results in rejection or a lack of interest isn’t it inevitable her frustration will grow?

It’s a tough job teaching but for those who find they have lost the ability (or desire) to inspire they should leave the profession!

Mrs D Barton

[Nancy Flanagan]

Dear Mrs. Barton and Susan,

So--I'm a little confused here. I'm hearing about Susan's wonderful teachers who inspire and challenge 200 children a week. But I'm also reading Susan's first posting (the inappropriate "shame on you" bit near the end) on how she is bored by mediocrity and dull lessons. If Susan has a number of creative, energetic teachers who are making learning a joy for her, then your argument essentially boils down to the fact that--surprise!-- not all teachers are "inspiring." If the thrust of your contention is that all teachers should be innovative, hard-working and dedicated to meeting all their students' needs, I'm certainly in agreement. But--that's not the case, and whining about how bright kids deserve better teachers is not an effective strategy for improving curriculum or instruction.

And that's the goal, isn't it? Making learning more appropriate for Susan?

I was dead serious when I suggested that Susan think about what she needs as a learner--I think it would be entirely appropriate for both of you to propose constructive solutions, if you believe that school is not challenging enough. Does Susan need an independent study? Different, more open-ended assignments? More critical feedback to push her development (rather than the automatic high mark)? A similarly talented partner for projects? A school-based advocate who can assist with creative ideas?

Gifted children are persistent; if you really want to learn something or stretch your intellectual abilities, Susan, you won't be deterred by an untested fear that your ideas will be rejected by a teacher. And who says you have to learn everything in school?

I have heard the old saw "we spend time and money on the slow learners but nothing on the gifted" at least a thousand times. It's a demeaning statement, based on the distasteful assumption that our brightest children (whom we can't even reliably identify) are being short-changed in favor of children who will contribute less to society. I wrote a lot about that in my original and subsequent posts, above--but I want to point out that, when public monies invested in post-secondary education are considered, it's not even true.

A fourteen-year old student who gladly assists classmates with schoolwork is indeed a joy, reflecting the principle of "much is expected of those to whom much is given." A teenager who simply complains about inequitable distribution of resources is, in fact, unbecoming. I am happy to hear that you are the former, Susan.

Finally, about "inspiration" and teachers (from an earlier comment):
Some children have been led to believe that it is their teachers' job to keep them constantly entertained and stimulated. Even a world-class teacher can't do that all the time. We must nurture more than intellectual acceleration in our children; they also need to learn to share adult attention, work with other children who are not like them, develop the skill of solitary work, and appreciate personal qualities other than being smart.

Best wishes,
Nancy