One Point of view: Gifted Education: Good News, Bad NewsAuthor(s): Gerald RisingSource: The Arithmetic Teacher, Vol. 31, No. 5 (January 1984), p. 2Published by: National Council of Teachers of MathematicsStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41190881 .

Accessed: 15/06/2014 09:02

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extendaccess to The Arithmetic Teacher.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 193.105.154.120 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 09:02:39 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

One Point Of X7ÍGCO

Gifted Education: Good News, Bad News

By Gerald Rising State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY 14260

iOQI

ШИ 4AAA LO dJ 4 АО А ^^ LO dJ

4 ПО О 4AQ7

-I AOC •IAQC 1984

First the good news. Across the country today, attention

is finally directed to the special needs of academically gifted students. Pro- grams abound. National contests, like the excellent Mathematical Olympi- ads for Elementary Schools, mounted by my respected colleague George Lenchner, and other creative compe- titions are gaining wide acceptance. After years of struggle simply to main- tain identity, professional associa- tions devoted to the concerns of gifted and talented (G/T) students and their teachers now flourish, and new ones are founded almost daily. Although án extraordinary incident has compro- mised the initiative of the federal of- fice for the gifted, the National Busi- ness Consortium for Educating Gifted and Talented Children appears ready to pick up this slack. State legislatures now commit millions of dollars to G/T education, and local school districts respond by mounting programs and even hiring teachers who specialize in working with the gifted. Whereas a decade ago it was difficult to locate a gifted program and educators even argued that such programs would be elitist and undemocratic, today the situation is reversed: gifted education is in, acceptable, de rigeur, and it is tough to find a district without such a program.

So much for the good news. I introduce the bad news with a

story. Several months ago at a meet-

The Editorial Panel encourages readers to send their reactions to the author with copies to NCTM (1906 Association Drive, Reston, VA 22091) for consideration in "Readers' Dia- logue."

ing of G/T teachers and supervisors (I was surprised to learn that some dis- tricts have the latter without the for- mer), I asked what mathematics was being taught in the special programs for gifted children. After a long period of silence one teacher responded, "I do the water jug problem." And that was it!

I am deeply concerned about the situation this sole response so aptly describes. Although I honor some of what G/T teachers are doing, I am shocked by their failure to address serious mathematics and science with these bright youngsters. We should all be aware of the horror story told by comparison of our school mathemat- ics with that of, for example, Japan and Russia. Failure to provide stron- ger mathematics for even our best students represents, I believe, failure to understand our national interest and the future welfare of this country.

What is the reason for this scientific void? A major part of the problem is the perception on the part of the G/T community that they should inhabit only a peripheral niche in the educa- tional program. Their efforts must be noncompeting and therefore extracur- ricular; basics belong only in the regu- lar classroom, equally accessible to all. This choice is, of course, not altogether altruistic: responsibility de- clines with distance from the curricu- lar center. Thus, our hard-earned gains are frittered away on what too often reduces to curricular dilettan- tism.

And the future? I predict worse, for today this philosophy is being insti- tutionalized in college G/T training and the inevitable certification that

will once again substitute courses tak- en for quality of content background and teaching skill. No content re- quirements are to be found; instead the focus is on administration, a few specific lesson sequences, entry pro- cedures, theory, and - as always - re- search.

Please be critical of what I say. Surely this cannot be the case in your school, in your district, in your state. Check. Ask the following questions: (1) Is there a gifted program? (2) If there is, does it have a significant mathematics component (not comput- er programming)? If it does, you're already in star category. (3) If it does, is the program appropriately related to the standard program? (4) And fi- nally, does the program go anywhere? Is there articulation beyond the grade level in which it is offered?

I hope for the best but fear the worst. Let me know what you find out. If you, too, are concerned, per- haps you can bring about rethinking in your area, and perhaps together we can pressure NCTM to take a stand as well, w

Professional Dates

NCTM 62d Annual Meeting 25-28 April 1984, San Francisco, Calif.

NCTM 63d Annual Meeting 17-20 April 1985, San Antonio, Tex.

NCTM 64th Annual Meeting 2-5 April 1986, Washington, D.C.

For a printed listing of local and regional meetings, contact NCTM, Dept. PD, 1906 Association Dr., Reston, VA 22091, (703)620-9840.

2 Arithmetic Teacher

This content downloaded from 193.105.154.120 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 09:02:39 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions