The "gifted" system in US schools is broken, racist, and completely fixable

[gollygee]

http://qz.com/497450/the-gifted-system-in-us-schools-is-broken-racist-and-completely-fixable/

The changes represent a 180% increase in the number of disadvantaged students, an 80% increase in the number of black students, and a 130% increase in the number of Hispanic students classified as gifted.

The researchers—economics professor David Card at the University of California, Berkeley, and Laura Giuliano, an associate professor of economics at the University of Miami—suggest that universal screening leveled the playing field for students who traditionally get overlooked in referral-based systems.

Notably, the study shows that students who might not have been classified as gifted under the old regime did well once they got into the gifted programs.

“f anything, the newly identified students benefitted even more from participating in gifted education than did the group of always takers who [would] be identified under a traditional referral system,” the researchers observed.

[whatthehey]

1. I'm sorry is that garbage a real quote?

...the group of always takers who be identified? Really? From PhD researchers?

[gollygee]

3. I can only post 4 paragraphs due to copyright restrictions

but the next paragraph explains that always takers are kids who are always taken into gifted programs no matter how gifted kids are identified.

[Journeyman]

5. The word "would" did not display because it is in brackets. . .

". . . always takers who (would) be identified . . ."

The sentence makes a little better sense with that word included, even if you couldn't parse what an "always taker" might be.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

6. Here are a couple of quoted paragraphs

“f anything, the newly identified students benefitted even more from participating in gifted education than did the group of always takers who [would] be identified under a traditional referral system,” the researchers observed.

An “always taker” is the sort of student who likely would have ended up being IQ-tested even in the absence of universal screening.

The previous regime had badly skewed the distribution of gifted children towards richer, whiter geographical areas. Half of gifted students were in schools that served just 18% of the population, a proportion that changed dramatically with universal screening.

[Orrex]

2. What our schools need is more testing, obviously.

Testing testing testing and then more testing. To hell with science and art classes--let's have more testing. And then let's test some more, with a few tests thrown in for good measure at the end.

[whatthehey]

16. It was more the "be" that indicated terrible grammar.

[underpants]

4. Any kid would benefit from being in the gifted program

My daughter is and the level of teacher, the atmosphere alone, is more on par with the pre-testing era. Kids of friends who didn't get in the gifted program say it is just mindless filling out of worksheets. My daughter's class last year actually had a walking classroom - audio instruction while they got up from their desks and took a walk outside.

Oh and yes, the gifted program is HEAVILY white and we don't live in a heavily white area. ON EDIT- I mean not black or Hispanic. 80% white with Pakistani or Indian making up the rest.

[Igel]

11. That's much of it.

But there's a lot more.

First, the GT label is to be reserved for a truly small number. That small number determines the characteristics. Instead, the label's been spread far and wide and includes many kids who aren't GT. They're just smart and high achievers. There's a difference, and when you see "28% are GT" you know you're looking at a bad, misguided set of criteria. Because it's political, in the sense that every kid rejected is a possible problem parent and administrators hate that. Moreover, the more GT kids, the higher many state rankings place the campus.

Second, the smaller class size, personal interaction with teachers, availability of choice in projects, all matter. They increase achievement all on their own. But there's more.

GT kids tend not to be classroom management disasters.

Just as the AP/pre-AP/level course system that many schools have effectively reinstitute tracking, so GT is part of that tracking system. It puts low-motivation, low-achieving students in one cohort and high-achieving/high-motivation students in another.

Studies show this is "bad," but the studies are usually skewed. Academics--what most of us understand to be "achievement"--is appended to social attitudes, appreciation of diversity, etc. But we're not done yet.

Turns out that the studies that did look primarily at academics and still returned results saying that high-achieving students benefited academically from helping lower-achieving students (a) didn't include classroom behavior issues and (b) split the kids into two groups. Split them into low, mid, and high-achieving students and the results differ. One group (the highest achieving, IIRC) distinctly *suffered* from ability mixing to the extent recommended. It was the middle group that benefited from mixing with high achievers and also benefited from mixing with low achievers. But the assumptions, contrarian research, and flaws in methodology are routinely ignored when social advocates apply the research to public (or private) schools. The desire to be agents of social change and save society is too strong to let accuracy and critical thinking survive.

[SheilaT]

28. It depends somewhat on the nature of the gifted program.

At one elementary school my sons attended, the kids in the gifted program were taken out and bussed to another school for part of the day, and were of course expected to keep up with everything that went on in the classroom. My older son, a very, very smart kid (he's getting ready to start on a PhD in astrophysics) missed the cutoff to be in that program by maybe a point. Initially I was very disappointed, but once I realized how that program worked, I realized that he would have wound up struggling terribly. Other kids in it did quite well.

My son, as brilliant as he was and still is, has Asperger's, and was never going to be able to manage that kind of a program. He is finally completing his B.S. in physics at the age of 32. Obviously he's not going to set any records for being the youngest anything in physics, but he has finally come into his own.

However, I absolutely agree that all kids should be given the kind of instruction that does NOT involve mindless worksheets. There needs to be a lot of hands-on stuff, and a lot of content, because that's how kids learn.

added on edit: I wound up moving that son to a local secular private school at 7th grade, and his younger brother four months later. The thing I loved best about the private school was how very much they taught them. The day before the last day of class they'd be learning new material.

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

7. The gifted program in my school was a joke

All they did was photocopy endless logic puzzle worksheets for us to do, while the teacher sat at her desk reading magazines and eating various cakes.

Once a year, we got a cool field trip to something (Space Camp local stop, etc), but that was always organized by the program at the school on the rich side of the county, and our teachers merely signed on.

Maybe others have had a better experience.

[B2G]

9. The gifted grade school I went to was amazing.

I wish every single kid had the opportunity I had.

[msongs]

8. let our "secretary of education" privatize all the schools for allegedly gifted kids and the rest

can go to public schools that get any left over money crumbs

[ProfessorGAC]

10. Conflicted

While i was the product of the sort of accelerated program described here. my wife was a special ed teacher for 30 years. We saw first hand the erosion of funding for special needs kids while money was being spent elsewhere.

Teachers in the gifted programs making 2x what the special ed teacher make.

Time to cut a lot of extracurricular programs and make sure funding is equal at ALL levels of aptitude.

[Igel]

12. What state?

To the extent this is remotely similar to Texas depends entirely on whether you're talking experience (most GT teachers are old-timers, most SpEd teachers are recent hires, and seniority matters) or job category (most GT teachers are certified "professionals" while many SpEd "teachers" are actually paraprofessionals).

In Texas, fully certified SpEd teachers are paid the same as non-SpEd teachers, and often receive a stipend that others, say English or Social Studies, don't receive.

[ProfessorGAC]

14. Sorry, Missed This

Illinois. She retired about 10 years ago. Things are very different here, or at least were 10 years and more ago.

[Xithras]

13. That's another effect of standardized testing.

Statistically, "gifted" kids are the most likely to be pulled from public schools if the parents don't think that their kids needs are being met. Schools with low quality "gifted and talented" programs tend to lose a large percentage of "gifted and talented" students to other public schools with better programs, or to private schools. The parents of these kids tend to be far more proactive than the typical parent in ensuring that THEIR kid gets into a program that challenges them.

Decades ago, many schools just shrugged their shoulders at the problem. If the kids wanted to leave because their programs weren't good enough, they could just leave. Nowadays, with standardized testing as the national norm, the average test score of an entire campus can have a HUGE impact on a schools funding and leadership. To keep their average up, the schools do everything possible to retain high performing students. The schools extra investment in "advanced" teachers for these students is seen as worthwhile if it increases the funding for the overall school.

I have to admit that I'm guilty of this myself. My daughter was in GATE for most of her elementary school years. When her original school cut GATE because they couldn't afford it, we transferred her to a different school that had the program. Nearly all of the kids in her class the previous year transferred as well. I have no idea what the actual impact was on the schools overall standardardized testing score, but it couldn't have been good.

[LWolf]

15. So let's talk about the "system."

I can add some information; I have some extra certification re: gifted ed, and have worked at district and site levels on local plans in two different states.

First of all, know this:

While it's a federal mandate that "gifted" students be served, it's not a funded mandate, and it's left up to states and districts to determine how to identify and qualify students for the program. There is no uniform "system" of identification or service. Across a single state, different districts can identify and serve differently, and they don't necessarily have to accept an identification made by another district and/or state when a student transfers in, although they usually will.

Secondly, in the states and districts I've worked in, identification is always a conversation, at least at the district level, and we're always talking about how to identify those who don't score at the top on standard cognitive assessments. Here's something I've noticed:

I began my career in one state; a state that funded, at least partially, gifted ed. Districts in that state worked harder because of that funding to identify and serve students, including using a matrix of multiple measures for identification purposes.

In my current state, there is no funding at all, and each district carves a small amount out of their general fund to make sure mandates are met...and that's all. It's a minimum effort to identify and serve, BECAUSE ITS UNFUNDED. And, I find that, in this state, educators at all levels understand quite a bit less about intellectually gifted students and how to serve them.

Way back when I was earning that extra certification in gifted ed, my professor was a wonderful, highly gifted, elderly black woman with a doctorate in education; she spent a lot of time on identifying those students who are traditionally overlooked. Nobody walked away from that program without clearly understanding this issue. The challenge was to get districts to listen. I was lucky to work for one that did, before I moved to this state.

Here, it's not so much a matter of listening, as of limiting. The whole system is structured to do as little as possible and still meet the mandates, because there is no funding.

You've probably noticed a pattern here, and it sure isn't limited to gifted ed, or to public ed. Funded mandates are more effective, and you're more likely to make needed changes.

I've served intellectually gifted students from all races and demographics over the course of my career. That might be because my training helps me spot them when traditional markers aren't there.

[gollygee]

17. At our schools they do use a standardized test

My daughter is in the GATE program and at her school, the kids in that program are very diverse compared to the school as a whole. Maybe even slightly more diverse.

The problem at our school is that parents whose kids are high achieving but don't do well on the test get upset and still want their kids in the program. I know a couple of kids who took the test a few times trying to get in - they do allow kids to retake it in case they were just having an off day. But the school doesn't budge on the fact that they have to score to a certain percentage on the test, and that is unpopular with parents.

Funding for anything at schools is always a problem. There's an anti-tax movement and IMO it's hit schools harder than anything else.

[LWolf]

18. That's actually an issue everywhere.

The "high achieving" vs "gifted" identification.

What so many don't understand is this:

The intellectually gifted are a high-risk group. They are at risk of dropping out, and of life-long problems with things like depression, social dysfunction, etc. They are not always, as a matter of fact are often NOT the high achievers.


That's why it's important to identify and serve them.

[greatlaurel]

19. You should make this issue an OP. The fact that GT are at high risk is not known by the public.

Last edited Tue Sep 15, 2015, 10:09 AM - Edit history (1)

Schools have no interest in publicizing that very important fact and the research on this gets ignored by the news media. The fact that there is no federal money to serve GT students allows for many, if not most, states to ignore funding. Since actual GT students are such a small percentage of the population, the parents have very little political clout.

Thanks for your very informative posts on this subject.

[LWolf]

23. I'll try to remember this weekend,

after I've survived the rest of the week; it's been an intense 2 days, and getting more so.

It's always an issue when the feds issue a mandate but don't fund it. They don't fully fund special ed services, either, although they certainly do fund a good percent.

[gollygee]

21. Yes this is the problem

the parents compare their high achieving kid to kids who might not do well and/or are disruptive in class and are upset that kids who don't do well in class get in the GATE program, or that disruptive kids are "rewarded" with the program.

[LWolf]

24. Parent ed is crucial.

When I worked in CA, I did monthly parent meetings in the evenings; one purpose was to educate parents about what it meant to be gifted; another was to help them support their children outside of school, and to help them advocate for their children within the system. It was productive, and I found that they started getting together on their own between meetings, too, to support each other.

This was for parents whose students were already identified. For those whose students were not, I had many meetings explaining the criteria, and if we did the tests and gathered the evidence and they didn't qualify, it was my job to explain it all over again.

I still do that. I always tell parents and students, before we start the process, that the school system only identifies a narrow part of the gifted population; that not being identified for the program doesn't mean that their student isn't gifted, but maybe not in the way that the school system serves. I also tell them that if their student needs more challenging material, I'm happy to work with the regular classroom teacher to help do that, whether or not there is a formal identification.

That usually does the job.

[greatlaurel]

29. Your efforts are making a difference for so many lives. Thank you for what you do.

The federally mandated identification process leaves many children unidentified. It is quite tragic for these children who are denied services. Parent education is vital to help them help their children. Many parents get frustrated with their gifted children as gifted children think in very different ways and do not respond the way most children do to many situations. I think it can be especially trying for parents who are not gifted themselves.

Giftedness is fascinating in how it manifests in different children and where it can take them if given enough support. Unfortunately, the children who are gifted in one of the multiple intelligences, which are not be tested for, are often not served in my state. These children need to be assessed differently as you mentioned in your post. The poorly funded rural and urban schools usually do not help these kids much at all which leads them to drop out of school or act out in other unhealthy ways. It is also another area where institutional racism manifests itself since black, NA and Hispanic children are way underserved.

The way the testing is done in my state allows for some very serious manipulation of the testing results and even outright cheating by a very few unscrupulous people. I have seen some bizarre situations.

I hope you get a chance to write an OP this weekend. I am very interested in your professional perspective. It is such a fascinating subject. As a volunteer, I am very lucky to work with several gifted young people. Do you have any suggestions on reading materials that would help me serve these kids better?

Thank you!

[Solly Mack]

22. Thank you.

Because most people do not understand that.

[LWolf]

25. You're welcome, of course.

[greatlaurel]

20. Gifted and talented children are found in equal numbers across all classes and ethnicities.

They are a very small percentage of the population and the percentage is consistent across all income levels and ethnic backgrounds. As LWolf said in a previous post these children are at very high risk for dropping out of school. The perception of gifted and talented is completely wrong in the US. These children are not "superior". Their minds work in different ways and are as different from one another as they are from other students. A child who is gifted and talented in art needs very different stimulation than a child who is gifted in empathy, math, science or language. GT are truly special needs children.

If a school district has all the children from the local doctors, lawyers and business people in the GT program then the district is doing it wrong. That is the case in my school district now. The GT program was started by a very smart woman who designed it and operated it correctly. When she retired the school board replaced her with the wife of a local unethical businessman. Turns out she is the same as her husband. The program is now run for the benefit of the politically well connected instead of all students. The GT program should have children from every ethnicity and socio-economic background as that is how GT is actually distributed in the population. When school districts skew the GT classes for political reasons they are doing a horrible disservice to the GT community and the education community at large. It makes the public resent GT programs because it is just giving the children of the well to do access to programs that are not of any real benefit to them.

GT children need special services to keep their minds functioning properly. These children do have many skills that can benefit society, but they are also at huge risk for dropping out of school and a whole myriad of problems as adults, if they are not guided properly as children. If I remember the number correctly, about 5% of the population is GT, but comprise 40% of school dropouts.

If the US would actually fund education properly class sizes would be no bigger than 12-15 children and every child would get the sort of individual attention they need. Teachers would have the time and support to serve every child. This would eliminate the resentment toward the gifted and talented children.

[Nevernose]

26. In the 80s, it was LITERALLY an excuse to segregate

My friend Brian moved in two doors down from my dad's house. He was black, but I didn't really care because we were nine. His mom, who had moved the family from Chicago because of the good jobs in that particular region of the South, did not know that the schools were still segregated. Because it was the 1980s.

The school board redrew the boundaries of attendance zones so that, while our street had previously been divided straight through the middle of the roadt, there was now a slight bulge switching Brian to the "black school."

Totally unrelated, and maybe miraculously, just a few weeks later a federal court issued a ruling for "us" to desegregate the school district.

Did I mention this was 1984? Thirty years after Brown v Board?

So the way they "desegregated" us was to send the all-white "gifted" kids to the black school, one day a week. It was every Tuesday. Now, granted, the black school had been completely rebuilt from the ground up (in as cheap a manner as possible, like a series of interconnecting trailers, but at least it was new). Why Tuesday? Because that's the day the court observers came by and checked to make sure that the schools were desegregated. They'd point through the windows, say, "Look! White kids!" and continue on about their business.

What the court people didn't know was that the "gifted" kids (i.e. white and smart, and with parents willing to advocate if they weren't particularly bright, like the public school version of those weirdos in New York who make sure their kids go to elite preschools) had our own special bus to get to school. And a separate entrance, so as not to be exposed to "them." And a separate lunch room. And a separate section of the building, and bathrooms, and playground.

Brian and I didn't really understand what was happening at the time, but in a couple of years we figured it out. Fortunately, his mom had also signed him up for the "wrong" Little League team; he got put on the worst team possible. It was him, me and the other horribly nonathletic kids, the asthmatics, the "special" kids. I'm sure you get the idea. Brian played pitcher; they underestimated the team full of screw ups; it was all very Bad News Bears. We won big time. To this very day I look at that trophy and take hope in the underdog.

(Fifteen years after that, in a major public school district, my aunt taught gifted and talented students. They stuck her and the kids in a broom closet for four years straight because the principal didn't believe in gifted students. "They're all gifted" she said, probably because that was the popular contemporaneous saying. It never occurred to her that kids could be special ed in the other direction. And when I say broom closet, I mean it literally: the custodian came to her classroom for his brooms and mops)

[Egnever]

27. I don't see how these results are that surprising

Considering this

The threshold on the initial test was lowered slightly for disadvantaged “Plan B” students, who were either eligible for free or discounted lunches based on their family’s income, or were English leaners.

or this

all second-grade students took an ability test, and those who scored above a given threshold took an IQ test in order to qualify for a gifted-and-talented program.

Sounds like the bar was lowered for "disadvantaged" students at the same time as the testing became mandatory. I am not sure that lowering the requirements for some students is actually fixing anything. It seems more like an attempt to increase diversity for the sake of increasing diversity than an actual attempt to identify gifted students. The mandatory testing however instead of recommendations would remove bias and seems totally appropriate.

I also don't find the fact that the newly identified students benefited more surprising, considering the others were already taking those courses why would they show any significant improvement. The smaller class size alone would likely cause significant improvement for any student taken out of the larger classes, gifted or not.