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.

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.

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.”

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.