Academically/Intellectually Gifted Education is problematic but necessary

Great Debates
1

A discussion in an absolute dumpster-fire of a thread, veered off into talking about gifted/advanced classes in public schools, and whether they’re advisable. This is an issue dear to my heart, and I’d love to see a discussion about it that’s nuanced, respectful, and not marred by absurd stereotypes.

First, my qualifications. Like a bunch of you yahoos, I was in gifted education when I was a kid, and overall those classes were the highlight of my youth. I noticed, possibly with parent help, that those classes were overwhelmingly white kids; but rather than conclude that the program was racist, or that institutional racism surrounded the program and influenced who qualified, I’m afraid I drew racist conclusions about my classmates both black and white, conclusions that took me years to confront.

Unlike any of you yahoos, though, I’m a certified Academically/Intellectually Gifted teacher. I’ve had this certification for five years. Up until this year, it’s meant that I’ve served on our district AIG planning committee, and also that I would have a cluster of AIG-identified kids in my class. This year, I’m our school’s AIG teacher. So I’ve got some skin in this game.

You might think I’d be 100% gung-ho AIG instruction, given my job. Contrariwise, you might ask how on earth a dyed-in-the-wool leftist like me can possibly be in favor of AIG. Truth is, I’m very conflicted.

Thus the thread title: AIG education is problematic, but necessary.

First, the problems: shit’s racist.

Overwhelmingly, and historically, white children are vastly overrepresented in AIG (and similar) programs, and black children are vastly underrepresented. In my own classes, of the ~60 kids I started the year teaching, and at a school with about 22% black population, I had (I think) 3 Black students. One of them left the school midyear, and another one rarely shows up, so in effect I have one Black student who regularly comes to group.

And my school is one of the better ones in the district in terms of those numbers.

We’ve struggled with this for years. Originally, students were identified via teacher recommendations on a complex form with 100+ questions. A form had to be filled out on every student, whether or not they were recommended. About five years ago, we switched to a standardized-test model, in the belief that maybe racial bias among teachers was leading to the disparity, and that the use of tests like CogAT (Cognitive Aptitude Test) would allow kids to be identified. It turned out not to help.

We’ve switched to a model where students can also be recommended by parents, teachers, or themselves, and can be evaluated using a different method. In addition, I conduct whole-class lessons with all kids in 1st-5th grade, with the goal of having all kids access some of my style of teaching, and to keep it from seeming elitist, and to give me a chance to meet some kids who don’t always do great on tests but are creative and engaged and thoughtful in a way that I could nurture in a smaller group. But it’s still not perfect.

And it’s such a sign of elitism. Wealthy White parents kind of assume that their kids should be AIG, and when their kids test in like the 70th percentile but not in the 90th percentile (our very lowest cutoff), they’re super-offended that their kids aren’t AIG material. This happens a helluva lot less with Black parents.

So, shit’s racist. It’s a real problem.

But that’s just half of the story. The other half is that it’s necessary.

Kids approach material with vastly different skillsets. I had a third grade class where one kid walked in the front door on the first day reading Hunger Games, and another kid never quite grasped the idea that you were supposed to read the actual words on the page instead of just making up a story vaguely based on the picture. And that level of disparity is pretty common.

You teach the core, try to teach lessons that 85% of kids can benefit from. But some kids aren’t ready to access the core materials. When you’re trying to teach kids how to do three-digit addition, a kid who can’t figure out 7+1 using their fingers just isn’t going to appreciate your explanation of place value and regrouping, much less the standard US algorithm. When you’re trying to teach kids to ground their literary discussions in specific textual evidence, a kid who can’t decode CVC words is not going to get much from that discussion.

The US has a flawed system for helping such kids: IEPs, or Individual Education Plans. Kids who have a specific learning disability get extra support from teachers who are experts in helping in such matters. At least, that’s the theory. In practice, it doesn’t always work the right way; but it’s a good idea.

But what about kids who aren’t learning from a lesson for another reason? What about the kid who sits through my Introduction to Multiplication lesson, doodling a word problem that represents twelve cubed? What about the kid who’s reading Hunger Games–what’s he going to get out of my lesson on decoding two-syllable words? Or what about the kid who doesn’t know fractions yet, but who picks up on new mathematical concepts the first time they’re explained: how much is she going to learn during my two-week unit on the concept?

I went to a training a few years ago from a guy who also taught me when I was in fifth grade, and a phrase he said really stuck out: “Every child deserves a year’s worth of learning for a year’s worth of school.” Kids are putting years of their lives into sitting in a classroom. We do not have the right to waste those years. If we’re going to require them to be in school, we need to make it a good use of their one precious life.

So I reject ideas like “Let the kids who master a concept teach the kids who struggle with the concept.” Every kid deserves to struggle with a concept. Sure, you learn something from teaching, 100%. But you learn a lot more from struggling with something you don’t understand yet. This is trivially clear. Which would help you learn more: teaching me to do something you already know how to do, or learning from me something you don’t yet know?

And I also don’t like the idea that AIG teaching is inherently elitist. Rather, it should be a specific service offered to kids whose learning needs are for concepts different from their classmates, whose Zones of Proximal Development (pedagogical jargon for “that area of knowledge where you can accomplish tasks but only with the help of an expert”) are different from their classmates.

I was one of those kids, as were, I suspect, a number of y’all. When teachers challenged me, I was freaking delighted; and when they didn’t, I was bored and sometimes a real schmuck. And some of the kids I teach are like that: some of them crave a chance to do work that’s difficult for them, because everyone learns when they are struggling with helpful support. We need to give every kid that opportunity for fruitful struggle, and we have to provide it to match the kid’s specific needs.

So AIG is necessary.

It may be that eventually we’ll transition to a different model. I’ve often wondered if we could move away from age-based education entirely, instead grouping kids according to what they’re ready to learn. A class on introduction to multiplication might have some five-year-olds and some ten-year-olds. Other classes might have similar ranges. Everyone would access core instruction, because instead of delivering core according to age, you’d deliver it according to readiness.

But until we figure that out, I think we have to have AIG as well as EC (exceptional children) instruction. We have to figure out a way to make AIG accessible to more kids and to eliminate its racist demographics; but eliminating it will create unacceptable problems.

That’s my thesis. Anyone have any relevant, respectful, non-caricaturing thoughts?

2

See also: Understood Betsy. This is one of the areas where responsible, competent homeschool teaching has an advantage over age-based school class structures.

I’m not quite getting why you seem to object to having advanced students involved in teaching, however. I completely agree that less advanced students can benefit from struggling with a subject that’s challenging for them, but advanced students can also benefit from struggling with how to help somebody else understand something that to them seems easy or obvious.

Yes, we shouldn’t waste advanced students’ learning time, but that doesn’t mean that we owe it to them to stuff in as much academic material as their zippy little brains can acquire, until they’re ready for the SATs at age 12 or something. Every kid’s basic education should include the concept of the stronger helping the weaker, and learning how to share knowledge rather than just singlemindedly maximizing one’s own personal acquisition of knowledge. So while I think advanced students should definitely have opportunities to pursue subjects at their own level, I don’t think that segregating their academic experience entirely from that of less advanced students is really a good idea for anybody.

3

Modhat: Just a heads up, I’ll try to keep an eye on this thread that it stays on focus. Any apparent attempts to derail will be dealt with as quick as I or another GD mod can.

To clarify, this means rehashing arguments from the previous related threads.

4

Thanks. I think there are very reasonable arguments both in favor of and against this sort of instruction, and I welcome those; but there are also really stupid arguments on both sides that turn AIG into a caricature straw, and I hope the thread doesn’t derail into those.

5

Holy effortOP, LHoD. I have thoughts, but they’re going to take some time to meet muster.

My throwaway, in the mean time, is that we should strive to teach all students at a level and pace that they are ready for. While keeping in mind that we don’t have infinite resources.

6

Gifted education is fine in my opinion. I don’t think it’s e prnecessary but something similar is awfully useful. Back in my day all it was, at the elementary level at least, was one day per week with another teacher where you have the opportunity to learn some other things.

I don’t care one bit about the racial, ethnic, or other identity politics of it. There was at least an objective component to the program and in my state that was the Stanford-Binet IQ test. I suppose the psychological test with the inkblots are subjective but I have no clue and the psychological subjective component may actually be problematic if it disqualifies someone with a qualifying objective test score.

7

For context, there was some discussion, elsewhere, that students ready for a higher level or faster pace should not be given that instruction at all, and should instead spend their time helping like-age students.

8

I think I didn’t state that clearly. It’s certainly good to do that occasionally; it’s good for everyone to learn how to communicate their ideas clearly to an audience that doesn’t understand those ideas yet. What I object to is the idea you’ll sometimes see that taking on the role of supplementary teacher fulfills the need for differentiation. This is something all kids should be able to do, and also all kids should get a chance to struggle meaningfully with ideas they find challenging.

I think that’s not an accurate way to put it. We do owe it to them to teach them, constantly. And that means they should be spending the bulk of their time learning material they don’t yet know. Is that what you’re characterizing as “stuffing in as much academic material as their zippy little brains can acquire”?

9

I was in gifted education in my youth, and all three of my children also have been. IME experience the way it worked almost all the time was like this: you had standard normal sort of classes, teaching the kind of things kids learn in school, using whatever methods were usually used for instruction of that subject. Only difference - the kids in the class are all X years younger than you expect. (X=1 usually, 2 sometimes … but usually the latter is “Hey, Kidsname, when it’s maths time, come on out of the Grade 4 class and go sit in the Grade 6 class”)

When put like that, it really mystifies me that people have a philosophical problem with the process. Gifted kids are mostly getting normal classes just like everyone else, just slightly differently scheduled. We didn’t get whizz-bang teachers particularly (though no doubt teachers like teaching kids who pick things up quickly, and there’s probably some competition for the role) - in fact, when my daughter was doing Year 8 maths in Grade 6 they recruited a uni student to take the class who I’m not sure even had an official teaching qualification. You just learn things that you’re capable of learning, when you’re ready to learn them. That’s how education is supposed to work.

A couple of high schools near here (not near enough to be our high school) do a thing I really like called a ‘vertical curriculum’ which seems to be ‘we treat year levels as advisory, pretty much’. So you can be doing Year 10 English and Year 8 Maths … nobody really cares all that much that you’re “officially” a Year 9. That must make life interesting for the class schedulers, but as far as the kids go it sounds fantastic

10

I’m not denying that this is a problem, but it can be substantially mitigated by allowing advanced students to work quietly on their own, at their own level, during some of the time that the other students are working on the more basic material.

Okay, I can see what that approach would be inadequate for the needs of the more advanced student. They should have opportunities to learn at their own level, not just teach others at a less advanced level.

The bulk of their time, yes, but not all of their time. It seems to me we’re not really disagreeing about this: it’s just a question of where you draw the line in terms of how much separation of classrooms, curricula, etc., you enforce.

11

Or in smaller groups. We definitely had level-differenriated groups for both math and reading in K through 2nd (I moved after that). Some kids in Kindergarten “went upstairs” to do reading instruction with some older kids.

12

I like the idea that where possible kids get the extra help they need and the extra challenges they can do. If a kid is poor in English and advanced in math but stuck in the generic 4th grade class, they are being disserviced by the system for both.

As far as gifted programs, this county is more about magnet schools and schools that have specialties. We have a large number of excellent schools ranging from High Tech, Marine Bio, Communications to Carpentry, Automechanics and several others.

Then many of the High School specialize in a field to act as a semi-magnet. It seems to work well from what I can see.

13

Another thing that would be hella helpful in this situation, besides moving away from strictly age-based educational levels, would be including more “non-academic” activities in school.

Something that all kids need to learn, especially in a democracy, is that all sorts of people have different levels of different sorts of knowledge and abilities, and everybody needs to be able to take the lead in stuff they’re good at while graciously appreciating the superiority of others in stuff they’re not so good at. When the school experience is only about sitting still and absorbing abstract knowledge, then the students who happen to be good at that (or have parents with the resources and motivation to push their kids to be good at that) just take it for granted that they’re the dominant elite, and never have an opportunity to change their perspective.

14

Yeah, I never understood why we don’t do the college model for kids. We don’t assume every adult progresses at the same rate in each and every branch of study.

15

Here’s the Dorothy Canfield Fisher passage that I referenced above from Understood Betsy (1916):

16

Another thing which occurs to me about the concept of keeping high-achievers in that same class as everyone and having them help their struggling classmates is this:

Supposing that Jayden is eight chapters on in the textbook, and Bob’s tearing his hair out trying to do last month’s homework, so the teacher says “hey Jayden, can you help Bob understand XYZ that we were working on this week?”

Never mind whether Jayden is okay with the process - doesn’t it massively suck for Bob? The very presence of a couple of Jaydens in the class is a subtle pressure for the teacher to keep the pace of instruction up to a level that’s too fast for him, and Bob’s never ever going to be the person who gets to explain stuff to someone, or have the satisfaction of being the person who gets it quickly and does well. Instead he gets the message, “well, you ought to be able to do this, everyone else can do this, you must be dumb.”

The theoretical knowledge that you’re in Stream 4 rather than Stream 1 doesn’t suck nearly as hard as having those Stream 1 kids right in your face, easily and consistently picking up things you find hard - even if everyone is being nice about the process, and trying to help you out. Nobody wants to be the person who’s receiving help all the time, specially not from their peers. Getting away from the idea that there’s an age where you ‘should’ be able to do particular learning things is actually good for everyone at all ends of the learning spectrum

17

In the five part broadcast of Nice White Parents, it’s noted that these systems were created largely for the benefit of white students. It wasn’t specifically designed to come at the expense of black students but that’s where we ended up. The parents of white students were more likely to raise hell to get what they wanted for their children while black parents were less likely to fight for theirs. Not because black parents love their children any less it’s just they view that fighting the system is pointless.

I’ve never heard that before (but I’m not in education). That sounds like a terrible solution. It’s great if students can help one another out on occasion but it’s terribly unfair to regularly place that burden on a kid. They’re not the teacher.

To start with, it might be best to examine the criteria used to admit students into AIG programs. As I said, I’m not an educator, and I’m going to go back to Nice White Parents again because I really hadn’t given education much thought until I listened to the podcast. One of the more desirable schools interviewed students to determine whether or not they had the right personality for the school. I’m not sure what the right personality was but I think we can see how this metric might be ripe for bias.

18

I don’t know anything much about the education system but I wanted to ask, does this hold true when you correct for social class? What I mean is, are black children of middle-class parents under-represented when compared to white children of the same economic standing?

19

Yes, but I also think this risks veering into a side-topic, which I’d rather not get into. Even if it doesn’t hold true, “shit’s classist” would identify a significant problem with the program.

20

I was on the board of a support group for GATE parents in my district for many years, and heard lots of talks by teachers and school psychologists. They agreed with you about having GATE students spend their time teaching not being useful. It didn’t enrich the GATE students and in a way it devalued the difficult job teachers must do in teaching those who don’t just get it.
They were big on differentiation, but I can see how an overworked teacher in a too big classroom might find it easier to support differentiation than to do it.

When I was in school the New York City schools were heavily tracked, visibly so. For me it meant that I had an excellent high school experience, among those like me. No egghead shaming. No boredom. Great teachers. Excellent preparation for college, since I was challenged and had to work. Best of all, trust. We had few if any tests in AP History. The teacher trusted us to do the reading. Based on the AP test results, he was right.

I get your concern about racism. In my district GATE identification is pushed by parents, and for us it means Asian kids are heavily represented. Too many white parents don’t give a shit. It certainly is not a matter of racism against white kids. Against Black kids, maybe, I have no experience with that to say.