GothamSchools — daily independent reporting on NYC public schools

Gifted Gazette

October 21, 2009

What EXACTLY Is Gifted and Talented?

by Michael McCurdy, at 10:19 am

The New York Times had an interesting article this week about the new Speyer Legacy School, a private school catering to gifted and talented children where annual tuition is a meager $28,500 for kindergarten. I suppose some people think there’s a need for such a program in the competitive world of gifted and talented but there still remains that nagging question: What exactly is “gifted and talented”?

Yes, that’s a loaded question and depending on whom you ask you’ll probably get a different response from everyone.  I’ve heard G&T defined by some parents as “every child is gifted and talented” while other parents claim “only the top 1% of the top 1% (.0001) are considered gifted and talented.” My guess is most people define gifted and talented somewhere in between.

As far as the NYC goes, the DOE defines gifted and talented extremely narrowly: by OLSAT and BSRA scores alone. Is this fair? Is it accurate? Aren’t some children artistically or physically gifted in ways that would not show up on the OLSAT, ERB or Stanford-Binet tests? That’s a valid point but the NYC DOE must define this program somehow, some way. No matter how the DOE chooses to define gifted and talented the critics will come out of the woodwork.

Then there’s the whole naming of “gifted and talented.” Is that really the most appropriate label for such a program that is solely based upon two tests given to a youngster (and in some cases a toddler!) by a complete stranger? Yes, there needs to be some sort of naming convention for the program but how about something like “advanced learners” or “academically inclined” or “children of obsessed parents trying to get their child into the G&T program”? Maybe something that sounds a bit less pretentious and a smidgen more inclusive.

I have to admit when I tell people my child got accepted to the gifted and talented program there’s a little bit of ego (ok, a lot of eg0) and pride when I speak on the topic. After all, it’s all about me — right? Wrong. So, is “gifted and talented” really meant to describe the student or just be a good descriptor to boost a dad’s ego? Being a proud father of a gifted and talented student as defined by the NYC DOE I must admit … well, let me think about it for awhile.

I’d like to hear from other GothamSchools readers on how they define (or despise) the label “gifted and talented.” Should we use another name? Should NYC have yet another private school that caters to the gifted and talented like Speyer Legacy School?

Print Print
  • http://MoreThoughtful.blogspot.com Alexander Hoffman

    It’s a problematic label, no doubt. What does it mean to me?

    Well, we have long had excellent programs for athletically or physically gifted children. Select, travelling and AAU teams in a variety of sports can be found all over our country.

    On the other hand, there are rather few programs for artistically gifted youngsters. Sure, we have school bands and orchestras, drama products and other activities. But I do not know that those are really aimed at the truly gifted.

    That’s where we run into trouble, though, right? What the heck do I mean by “truly gifted”?

    Generically, I would say that I am referring to kids who cannot succeed in a regular classroom environment. Not simply that they could not do their absolute maximum and best, but that they cannot succeed. That is the thinking behind special education programs, right? Well, I’ve long thought at G&T as being for a kind of special education student.

    (Yes, I am talking about academic gifts. Verbal ability and logical/mathematical ability. Traditional stuff, really.)

    Of course, there are problems with this thinking.

    * We are moving further and further towards inclusion models for special education. What does that imply about G&T programs? Should we disband them? Do G&T kids need aides to help them? Are we going to set up team teaching with a G&T teacher and a regular teacher?

    * If we recognize that there are different areas of aptitude, any of which might be cause to apply the G&T label, what does that imply about G&T programs? Are we really going to call them all gifted and treat them the same, even when they have very different intelligence profiles?

    (Full disclosure: My mother’s long-ignored doctoral disseration from 30 years ago found a strong positive correlation between language complexity and math/spacial ability among gift children (i.e. genius level IQs)….except for the top quartile of them by math/spacial ability. The gifted among the gifted in that area were REALLY lousy on the language complexity. In very common and misleading terms, as kids get smarter they get smarter at everything, except the math/sciene geeks — who cannot communicate for crap.)

    *****************

    I take issue with declaring that the top 10% on a test are truly G&T. That seems awfully broad a group. Back in my day, and when my mom did her research, it was just the top 1%. I would like to know why it has broadened.

    I would also like to point out that while Howard Gardner’s idea of multiple intelligences is clearly a good one, he makes no definitive claim as how intelligences might best be classified. He certainly does not claim that his list really are separate and independent (i.e. “orthogonal”). I would caution against general claims of the existance of multiple intelligences without careful attention paid to what they might be and why those particular traits are cited.

  • Kelly

    I just had a conversation with a student who missed three days of class and then with 1 day of review and some make-up work completed on her own (in one day!), got a 100% on a quiz that many students who had been in class all week still struggled with. She said when she hears things, “they just stick to her brain.”

    In thinking about giftedness, I tend towards the much smaller percentage – kids who really stand out. They learn super fast, or get to a level of depth or complexity that no one else does, etc.

    There are plenty of great kids who I would say ought to be in a regular classroom with some challenge/enrichment work as appropriate – they move a little faster or learn a little deeper, and need some modifications to the curriculum when they are ready to move on before others are.

    A very small number of truly gifted kids are so different that they may need special programs. But I think those are very few, and “you know ‘em when you see ‘em.”

  • Michael M.

    It must be pointed out (as the author indeed touched on) that DOE uses TWO different measures, in combination. (I forgot the ratio.)

    And then, qualifies kids into two tiers OF giftedness and talentedness: top 90% (was initially top 95%, even under the recent “by the numbers” revision under Klein); and top 1%. On a national scale.

    Then there’s plenty of families who are fine with their local school and don’t accept the districtwide G&T placement. In at least one district (the author’s and my own D2). Then there are plenty of kids in other districts who might be in the top 10% of their district, but not top 10% nationally.

    The labeling rhetoric is the least of it.

  • Joanne

    Hi You guys are so egotistical that you are talking about yourselves instead of the kids. I suggest that some kids are actually gifted and then there are some with money or serve a community interest. It is really simple to find out. There are tests done nationally–funny you guys only have your kids take the test from schools that will benefit from your money. Get over yourselves and instead realize if your kid is truly gifted, he is a special need kid. And it sounds like even though I am low income, I am not as stupid as you.

  • kate

    I really think the powers that be in NYC DOE are trying to copy the Singapore model – which encourages parents to use tutors and prep their children to get into the best school programs. The top 10% of the children are then funneled into the best schools. G and T unfortunately was the only name they could come up with, not much original thinking over there! The testing in Singapore just as the OLSAT here is not to identify the highest IQ but to identify the best potential students, ones that will listen and pay attention.

  • EFM

    Maybe the answer isn’t in defining giftedness more closely, but providing alternatives to the dullness which effects so much of education.

  • Hannah

    I want to get a word in from the student’s perspective here:

    The one real advantage of a school for the gifted is that we are among a group of peers who have similar abilities and talents. When we walk into seventh grade science, we don’t feel weird or strange for studying trig. When we enter 9th grade english, we aren’t branded as outcasts and weirdos for having read the dictionary. Having a gifted school allows us to find a support base from which we can launch ourselves so that we do not feel alone when we go to a high school where we are thrown back in with the general population. However, an academically high-powered school will also work just as well (and probably cost less).

    Regarding the test, I agree that there are other kinds of giftedness, but they often ( and sometimes unfortunately) take second place to the academic versions of giftedness. This is partly because it is easier to define/test for, and because academics are already incorporated into our school system, whereas something such as social intelligence, or emotional intelligence.

Tips, questions, feedback?

Contact us at .

Word from Our Sponsor

Follow GothamSchools

RSS
Subscribe to the daily email digest:

Chalk It Up

Recent Comments

12 comments so far today
View all comments »

RSS Feeds

Newsroom posts Community posts All GothamSchools content

Archives

May 2013
M T W T F S S
« Apr  
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031  

Copyright Notice