Life Among the Gifted

Our schools were designed during the Industrial Revolution to produce adequate factory workers from the immigrant mass. To teach them to write and do basic sums, skills that would ensure they could carry out their jobs in the factories. The restricted focus of the last decade on rote practice in math and language arts, the two main subjects tested on state-wide summative tests, has ensured that we are still producing factory type workers. The issue is, the world now needs people who can think, create, problem solve, invent, streamline, and synthesize. Our school system has dumbed-down to the lowest common denominator. With our focus on NCLB, we are assuring ourselves a place in mediocrity on the world stage.

Our educational approach has also reduced the teaching profession to a factory job. We have taken the professional judgment away from our teachers. Their positions have become the equivalent of a factory clerk; they are required to read, write, do sums, and follow directions. Teachers no longer have the ability to decide how best to address their students’ learning needs. They are not encouraged to creatively approach their curriculum and teaching style, but rather to mass produce an assembly line product. They have no time to incorporate hands-on, authentic connections to the real world into their lessons. They have been assigned a schedule to gallop through and a curriculum to cover; all to ensure that their students do well on the all-important summative test. The whole education system does not promote higher order thinking; the creative, analytical thinking that is seen in the evaluative top three categories of Bloom’s Taxonomy. Further, our schools today don’t require our children to stretch their brains beyond Bloom’s lower categories, the recall of information. It most assuredly doesn’t encourage our teachers to stretch their minds and engage in higher thinking. Is it any wonder that our best and brightest college students don’t consider teaching a viable career path? Are we still surprised, despite years of focus on NCLB that our students rank towards the bottom world-wide? Should we be shocked that homeschooling is growing at such a rapid pace? How long should we ignore the business think tanks’ warnings that we are not producing the kind of thinkers needed in today’s work force?

Our school system is failing. It is outdated, ineffective, and hanging by a financial thread. In their book, “Disrupting Class: How Disruptive Innovation Will Change the Way the World Learns,” Clayton Christensen, Curtis W. Johnson, and Michael B. Horn use a business model to predict that our monolithic approach to education will utterly fail within fifteen years. Functioning in financial crisis mode is now the norm for school districts across our country. Adequate funding is no longer available to run our schools. Despite the obvious funding crisis, we continue to financially penalize schools who don’t meet NCLB standards. NLCB is one of the most funded mandates and one of our nation’s largest tax increases; yet it lacks funds to reward school districts for improving student achievement (not to mention, the funds necessary to provide safe functioning environments for learning). Perhaps, if we focused on improving rather than penalizing needy schools and districts, we might actually transform our educational system into one that works for all learners. We are systematically weakening our educational system to the point of no return.

We need to toss NCLB into the scrap bin. We need to give teachers back their self respect. We need to challenge students to think again. We need to teach students to focus on their strengths while we support their weaknesses. We need to build a generation of students equipped to take us into the future. We should be returning to our pre-factory roots when we prized independent thinkers. We need to rekindle that creative spark that educated men and women who had the audacity to create a nation. It is that spark that sets us apart, yet our school system has extinguished it from the minds of our children. We need to bring our students out of the factory and into the future.

How shall we make such a bold move? It will take a revolution. We must revolt against the one-size-fits-all mentality, against a top-down model, against test publishers and their lobbyists, against teachers’ unions and low teacher salaries, against narrow-minded curriculum, against run-down facilities, against a system biased toward the wealthy. We must free ourselves from the grip of mediocrity. There are models around the country that pave the way; schools in diverse populations that are working for those very populations. There are teachers who are passionate about what they teach and creative in how they teach it; administrators who reject the status quo and find solutions that work; superintendents who hire professionals and treat them as such. We should be looking at them. We should be studying schools that provide experiential learning with real-world applications. Innovative schools are scattered throughout the United States, schools with an eye to the future and a finger on the pulse of their students and community. As President Obama said, “In pockets of excellence across this country, we are seeing what children from all walks of life can and will achieve, when we set high standards, have high expectations, when we do a good job of preparing them.” We should replicate those schools’ in their ability to recognize diversity in student learning modalities/abilities and model a system that honors all learners. We should build a model that equally educates dancers, scientists, artists, athletes, writers, naturalists, entrepreneurs, mathematicians, and historians. We should end the academic hierarchy that places math and language arts at the top, squeezes in a little science and social studies, and makes all other topics expendable. In his book, “A Whole New Mind: Why Right Brainers Will Rule the Future,” Daniel H. Pink proposes that as computers become more sophisticated and able to do logical tasks previously reserved for left-brained humans, right-brained thinkers will become a valued commodity. He anticipates that in the future world of business, an MFA will be the new MBA. Companies will be looking for creative thinkers, innovators, and inventors, all right-brained traits. As Einstein so eloquently stated, “We can’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.”

Speaking of Einstein, what are we doing to ensure our up and coming Einstein’s are nurtured and helped to reach their full potential? We must not put a glass ceiling in our classrooms that stops advanced thinkers from working to their ability. We should intellectually challenge our brightest students instead of letting them languish in boredom. Eighty percent of gifted and talented children are homeschooled at some time during their school career. These bright minds are pulled out of our system by disgruntled parents who are tired of beating their head against a bureaucratic brick wall. These are parents who can no longer stand by and watch their child’s potential squandered by a system that focuses on the least common denominator. Our single-minded focus since mandating NLCB has created a culture where No Child Leaps Ahead! We are one of the few industrialized nations in the world that does not have a program to systematically identify and appropriately educate our gifted student population. Our GATE programs are inadequate or non-existent in the majority of our schools. While we are to be commended for our desire to educate all children equally; at best, the mass education approach has produced mediocre educational results. Consequently, many of our brightest students are disinterested and bored in an academic system that teaches to the average. Gifted and talented children hold the greatest promise for producing future leaders, Nobel laureates, inventors, and champions of industry. What are we risking by not developing these talents here in America?

As Americans, we have drive, ability, and independent spirit in abundance. We need an educational system that celebrates and expands on these great American traits. Let’s not try to make every student the same, or rein in creative teachers, or expect administrators to find money; let’s get off the conveyor belt and out of the factory. We deserve better than NCLB. We deserve a system that ensures our children will be able to compete and thrive in our global economy. Let our brightest leap ahead!

I am going to take on one of the sacred cows of the gifted industry. I think IQ testing is expensive, inconclusive, and can lead to inaccurate labeling of the child. I have seen too many parents bow to the industry’s pressure to test; it is required to join groups, apply for schools, and diagnose abilities. There are many gifted professionals whose main income is derived from IQ testing. Publishers of tests have established successful businesses based solely on testing. Testing is a firmly entrenched part of our education system, purportedly designed to identify who will be successful in their efforts towards a higher education. But it is not a good indicator of success. According to Dr. Robert Sternberg, eminent psychologist and expert in giftedness, IQ tests do not test intelligence, but rather are equivalent to achievement tests. “Intelligence tests typically measure the achievements a person is supposed to have attained several years earlier.” He believes that IQ tests are not a good measure of potential.

Interestingly enough, most IQ tests were designed to identify children with an IQ below normal, not above. There have been some efforts to revamp IQ tests to more accurately identify extremely high IQ’s, one such test is the Stanford Benet LM. While it probably comes closer to identifying a number that reflects ability, it is still very limited in identifying a child’s strengths and intellect. At best, an IQ test is a snapshot of how that child was thinking at that particular time, in that particular place, with that particular tester. These variables can affect the outcomes quite significantly.

One of my clients is a very young math prodigy who was doing calculus at age seven and has an incredible mind. He sees the whole world through a math filter. Despite my misgivings and advice to the contrary, the parents decided to have him tested. How did he score? Below average, in fact his IQ score was 95, five points below “normal intelligence.” This information sent his parents into a tailspin of doubt and misgivings. Had they misread their child’s abilities? Was he a savant in math but below normal intelligence in general? As they struggled with this information, it changed how they looked at their son. Meanwhile, their son was the same boy, had the same abilities and quirks, and still loved math above all else. So what did that achieve? Perhaps it satisfied parental curiosity, though the outcome was not what was expected. Perhaps if he had scored higher it would have qualified him for a gifted program. It really wasn’t necessary and it cost the parents a good deal of money and emotion to go through with the testing. Luckily, they never shared the scores with their son, so he is happily ignorant of his IQ score; but it is out there and very likely as he matures he will have access to that information. How will it affect his view of himself?

The same complications exist for parents whose child scores extremely well on an IQ test. It can alter the parents’ views and expectations of their child. One of my clients, whose daughter scored as profoundly gifted (IQ 200+) was completely rattled by this knowledge. The parents became very unsure of their ability to meet their child’s intellectual needs, despite the fact that they had been doing an excellent job to that point. Other clients have become more controlling of their child’s destiny once a high IQ score is received. Suddenly, the parent sees a whole new career path for their child which might or might not be related to how the child sees themselves in the world. An IQ score can overshadow everything else and make it harder for the parents to work towards developing a well-rounded child. It can also be frightening for a child to be tested, categorized, and labeled. They may begin to doubt their own abilities and desires.

I am not against identifying strengths, disabilities, weaknesses, areas of interest, and talents; but it must be done in a more holistic way. Robert Sternberg, a noted psychologist and expert in developing talent and ability, has launched a new form of testing called “The Rainbow Project” which tests IQ in a whole new, whole-mind way. It tests creative, practical, and analytical abilities using art, humor, and ingenuity. Perhaps this form of testing, which gives right-brained gifted children the same chance of scoring well as it does left-brained children, will open up a whole new way of looking at how we test ability. Perhaps somewhere down the road someone will design tests that include what type of learner you are, where your interests lie, and how you process information; but even if the tests are holistic, we would still have to contend with the bias of the person scoring the exam. In the end, it really doesn’t matter. The proof is in the pudding, so they say, and gifted children’s abilities can be observed in their activities and pursuits. Do we really need an IQ score to determine how best to support our unique children? I have great trust in children’s abilities to seek out what they want to learn and their self knowledge of how they learn best. Perhaps our money would be better spent in helping our children to experience first-hand their areas of passion. Take them on a field trip, buy them a chemistry set, travel to a volcano, take them to the opera, sign them up for art classes, buy them ingredients to experiment with cooking, let them fly in a plane, teach them to scuba dive…these real world experiences will help them define and develop their talents in ways a test cannot possibly identify. Be courageous parents, step outside the narrow view of identifying ability through IQ testing and give your children your full support to develop their own self-identified talents and interests. Life experience will tell them how best to use their gifts, will teach them to respect themselves, and will open up their pathways to the future.

It all started fairly innocently. When my son was about eighteen months old, he taught himself to read. By the time he was two, he could read baby books; by three, he was reading, “The Magic School Bus.” His Dad and I were pretty excited, we gave each other sly hi-fives; we patted ourselves on the back for producing such a smart boy. Okay, so far so good. Then we made a colossal mistake…we tried to show off. Grandma and Grandpa came to visit. Of course we had to brag about how well Dylan could read; so naturally they wanted an exhibition. I primed Dylan for the upcoming event (not realizing I would need the skills of a SWAT team negotiator.) “Guess what? Grandma and Grandpa are really excited about your reading! Wouldn’t you like to read for them?” “No.” I was in denial. “But Honey, they only see us once in a while and it would be really special if you read to them. So will you please?” “No.” I was reduced to bargaining. “If you read to Grandma and Grandpa I’ll let you pick out a new book to buy.” “No.” I moved reluctantly to acceptance and decided to try convincing him later. I didn’t notify the Grandparents that the performance was off, in a vain hope that my powers of persuasion would entice him to change his mind. Later that day, to my surprise, he simply announced that after dinner he will read to us. Hoorah, patience prevailed! Finally, we were all seated for our post-dinner show, faces beaming with anticipation. Out walks the star of the show…stark naked. Now, my husband and I would normally not bat an eye, our son likes to be naked; but Grandma and Grandpa are not as liberal on the clothes optional issue. “Dylan, wouldn’t you like to get dressed before you read?” I asked hopefully. “No thanks Mom,” he gaily replied. I gritted my teeth, “No really Dylan, I want you to get dressed before you read.” Dylan whined, “I don’t like clothes, they are too scratchy.” More negotiations ensued. End result was a boy dressed in his most comfy pajamas and a dangerously unpredictable attitude. Despite his grumpy reluctance, the Grandparents were hanging in there. Finally situated, Dylan opened his book and begins to read, “zzzzizzfyxx pattrequorp.” “Dylan, what are you doing?” “I’m reading Mom.” “But those aren’t the words in the book.” “Yes they are, I’m translating them into Quandesayca.” “There is no such language as Quandesayca.” “Yes there is, I made it up.” Grandparent smiles were beginning to look strained. “Could you read in English please?” I begged. “Okay, okay, okay. Staob taolf esuaceb fo rieht…” “Dylan, that is not right, read it right.” “You didn’t say I couldn’t read it backwards,” he sullenly replied. “Dylan! Could. You. Please. Just. Read. It. Properly!” I hissed through clenched teeth. In response, Dylan jumped off the chair and began rolling on the floor barking like a dog. Grandparents were no longer even trying to put on a polite face; in fact, Grandpa looked downright alarmed. “That’s it Dylan,” I yelled, “go to bed!” Grandpa leapt at the opportunity, “I think we’ll turn in too, it’s been ah, um, a long day.” Grandma and Grandpa nearly sprinted for their room and firmly shut the door. Despite the fact that I brought the whole problem on myself, I was fuming and embarrassed. I hoped I could face my parents in the morning. I stomped off to make sure the reluctant reader was in bed. As I reached for his bedroom door handle I heard him reading in a clear perfectly enunciated voice, “Air is a mixture of invisible gases…” Lesson learned: Never assume your little genius will do anything to back your claims, nor should you ask them to!