This article was downloaded by: [University of North Texas]On: 03 December 2014, At: 22:08Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

Peabody Journal of EducationPublication details, including instructions for authorsand subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hpje20

Social ideologies and giftededucation in today's schoolsBarbara ClarkPublished online: 22 Jun 2011.

To cite this article: Barbara Clark (1997) Social ideologies and gifted educationin today's schools, Peabody Journal of Education, 72:3-4, 81-100, DOI:10.1080/0161956X.1997.9681867

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0161956X.1997.9681867

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 2

2:08

03

Dec

embe

r 20

14

PEABODY JOURNAL OF EDUCATION, 72(3&4), 81-100 Copyright O 1997, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Social Ideologies and Gifted Education in Today's Schools

Barbara Clark

The myth that children are born gifted and therefore can make it on their own is the belief that most affects the perceptions of the public regarding the N e d student and, too often, the actions of educators. From such a belief comes much of the antagonism toward providing differentiated learning experi- ences for gfted students and the notion that excellence and equity are separate and contradictory concepts. As a result, the limits to support for gifted learners reflect a lack of accurate knowledge, not a lack of commitment to children. Members of society and even educators still hold beliefs and attitudes that result in actions that are often damaging to the optimal growth of bright children. Data relevant to these beliefs suggest a view that is more in keeping with current biological and genetic research. It is this percep- tion-the interactive and dynamic development of intelligent-that pro- vides the basis for this article. The issues of equity, democratic ideals, and human rights must be reemphasized as they relate to gfted learners. To make a positive difference in what all human beings can be and how much of their potential they can develop and enjoy, we must start by dispelling the limiting ideologies society now holds. There is a need for schools that value unique- ness and talent in all children and that respect and nurture gfkdness wher- ever it is found. By an understanding and use of the data now available this challenge can be met.

BARBARA CLARK is Professor in the Division of Special Education, California State University, Los Angeles.

Requests for reprints should be sent to Dr. Barbara Clark, Division of Special Education, California State University, Los Angeles, CA 90032. E-mail: bclark@calstatela.edu

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 2

2:08

03

Dec

embe

r 20

14

B. Clark

Gifted education suffers in concept and in implementation from a serious lack of support from the general public and, most damagingly, from the very professionals to whom its existence is entrusted. Although govem- mental goals include high levels of educational achievement by the year 2000, government resources in support of high levels of achievement are limited. Nearly all members of the general public seek to enrich their lives by calling on the skills and talents of the most @ed doctors, scientists, inventors, entertainers, diplomats, and artisans from every profession, yet the development of such @s and talents is viewed with suspicion and given little active attention. Ironically, a majority of the public is on record as being very supportive of appropriate education for gfted students, according to a 1992 Gallup public opinion survey (Larsen & Griffin, 1992). When asked if they would support special funding for a program to provide a more challenging education for the smartest and most gifted children, 84% of the general public and 90% of the parents of school-age children re- sponded that they would support funding. Only 10% of the general public and 9% of the parents of school-age children said that they would oppose it. And yet school boards and legislative bodies drawn from this very general public consistently give token support at best to public school programs for gfted learners. The following examples from my experiences are used to illustrate these concerns and may sound all too familiar to those who work in gifted education.

He had worked very hard to bring to his small rural district the services of a well-known leader in the area of gifted education for the purpose of motivating and informing the teachers, parents, and the local school board members about the needs of their gifted students. He saw this visit as an important first step in recognizing and appropriately providing for the gifted learners in his district and raising the awareness of the need to focus more of the district's resources on supporting high levels of achievement for all students. But it wasn't going to happen! The school board had met last night and all the money that was to go into the academic program was diverted to the athletic fund. There was some emergency regarding the coaching stafand some equipment that they needed so he didn'f have any way to pay the expenses of a speaker now. The common belief was that there weren't that many "gifted" kids in the district and they could certainly get along by themselves.

But most curious and certainly of most concern are the attitudes and beliefs of the educators who should be the most supportive, for without their commitment, gifted education cannot exist. As Dettrner (1985) discov- ered, attitudes of educators toward gfted students affect, not only the students and their performance, but also the acceptance and effectiveness

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 2

2:08

03

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Societal Ideologies and Gifted Education

of the gfted program and the morale of the school as a whole. Another personal experience will serve to illustrate this issue.

The district meeting had been called for the purpose of reviewing the program now in place for gifted learners. A s the consultant presented the possible alternatives the district could use to improve the gifted program, the differences i n the responses between the views held by the parents of the children who had been identified for the pped program and a majority of the teachers were evident. Finally, one obviously upset middle school teacher demanded to be heard. "Neither I nor any of the teachers at m y school will agree with any of these recommended changes. We represent all children and it is morally wrong to give different instruction to these gifted students. I , for one, do not believe the so- called research that indicates that these children have educational needs other children do not. I f they are so smart they can find something useful to do with their time. A lot of these students don't evenfinish the work wegive them. They need to learn discipline and to fit in. 1 have over 200 students a day and there isn't time to give difirent work to these few students! It just wouldn't be fair to the others. "

Priorities, fairness, equity, different needs, elitism, and society's goals-all of these issues enter into any discussion of society's perceptions of gifted students and their education. Perhaps the attitudes and beliefs that are currently encountered in the general public and in the educational community result not from real opposition or reasoned antithetical beliefs so much as from varying levels of uninformed views.

Lack of Accurate Knowledge, Not Lack of Commitment

To better understand the limited support given to gifted education by the general public and a majority of educators, it would seem useful to distinguish between commonly held perceptions and beliefs about these children and the more factual information regarding their identity as we now know it. Most of the problems now faced by this population of special needs students is directly or indirectly attributable to this disparity. Even those who are sympathetic to their needs, advocate for their cause, are concerned for their educational welfare, view them as important contribu- tors to society, or all of these may hold limited or even incorrect views regarding how giftedness develops. They may not understand the perva- siveness of the needs it creates, the extent to which its development can be slowed or even reversed, and the problems experienced by the gfted individual when such development is ignored or inappropriately nurtured.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 2

2:08

03

Dec

embe

r 20

14

£3. Clark

The same statements continue to be made and the same beliefs continue to be expressed as though throughout the years there have been no new data available about how human beings leam, how the brain responds to stimulation, and how environments affect the very structure of that brain. There is, of course, much yet to leam and far more to study as we seek to understand human growth and development. We are far from knowing our limits as human beings, far from using the vast richness of our genetic heritage, and far from optimizing learning at home or at school. We do, however, know so much more than we are using to enrich the lives of all of our children.

The information that we now possess, if commonly known and used by parents and teachers, would transform the educational experiences of vast numbers of children. The probability is high that we could even now enrich the interactions between the endowment given to the child genetically and the opportunities provided for the child environmentally so that most children would enjoy sigruficantly more of their unique potential and the number of children that would show the traits of gftedness would be substantially increased (Berg & Singer, 1992; Conlan, 1993; Diamond, 1988; Kandel & Schwartz, 1991; Scheibel, 1993; Thompson, Berger, & Berry, 1980). The only reason that these statements would be considered excessive or overly optimistic is the very reason that this is not happening. The majority of society, including the educators at home and at school, do not hold such beliefs and do not see the value or possibility in pursuing such information.

Societal Beliefs That Create Limits

What does the majority of our society believe? What are the questions still asked and the comments still made? Here are but a few of the statements I so often hear expressed by teachers, administrators, counselors, educa- tional decision makers, and other members of the larger community. Such statements expose the beliefs and shape the actions taken toward gfted individuals.

"Intelligence Is Inherited so It Does Not Change. Gifted Children Are Just Born That Way. "

Accompanying these statements will often be a reason for limiting education for gifted learners, "If they are really gifted, they can get by on their own." The fact that research beginning in the 1960s (Cancro, 1971; Krech, 1969; MacLean, 1978; Pribram, 1977; Restak, 1991,1994; Rosenzweig,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 2

2:08

03

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Societal Ideologies and Gifted Education

1966, 1984; Teyler, 1977) indicates that intelligence is developed from an interaction between genetic patterns and environmental opportunities, that it is dynamic rather than fixed, and is less limited than was once supposed makes this attitude unnecessarily limiting and even wasteful of vast endow- ments of talent within much of our population.

The development of gdtedness is the result of an interactive process that involves challenges from the environment that stimulate and bring forth innate talents, capabilities, and processes. Although these innate mecha- nisms are most easily affected during the early years, they require appro- priate challenge throughout the individual's lifetime for high levels of actualization to result (Berg & Singer, 1992; Buell & Coleman, 1981; Conlan, 1993; Diamond, 1988; Hutchinson, 1986; Kandel & Schwartz, 1991; Scheibel, 1993; Thompson, Berger, & Berry, 1980). We either progress or regress intellectually; maintenance of a fixed quantity of intelligence is not possible. Giftedness, as a label for a high level of intelligence, is a dynamic quality that can only be furthered by participation in learning experiences that challenge and extend from the point of the child's talent, ability and interest.

Beginning with animal studies, and proven to be of similar importance to humans, it has been found that growth within the brain progresses with appropriate stimulation or regresses when stimulation is limited or inap- propriate (Berg & Singer, 1992; Buell & Coleman, 1981; Conlan, 1993; Diamond, 1986,1988; Hutchinson, 1986; Kandel & Schwartz, 1991; Scheibel, 1993; Thompson, Berger, & Berry, 1980). Gifted students, like all students, need challenges presented to them by their educational experience at the level congruent with their ability and development. If this is not done, the brain does not maintain the level of development but regresses, literally wasting ability and talent (Diamond, 1986,1988; Krech, 1969,1970; Restak, 1991,1994; Teyler, 1977; Uzgiris, 1989). The problem for the gifted learner is that schools do not often present curriculum at levels of thought that are complex, advanced, or sophisticated beyond that considered appropriate for the age of the child. Yet, age has little to do with appropriate levels of learning; experience has, but seldom age (wgotsky, 1974). This belief in age-appropriate learning is at the core of actions that allow the lack of continuity so often seen in gdted programming, the lack of educational challenges offered at the level of the student's need, and the lack of special programming if the student is not already performing in the grfted range. Gifted learners must be allowed to engage in appropriate educational experiences even when other children of that grade level or age are unable to profit from the experience. For intelligence to continue to develop, appropriate educational experiences must be available for every child (Bodrova & Leong, 1995; Bloom, 1964; Chomsky, 1966; Kagan, 1971; Lenne- berg, 1967).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 2

2:08

03

Dec

embe

r 20

14

B. Clark

"Equity Must Be Preferred Over Excellence in a Democratic Society. Anything Else Would Lead to Elitism."

In a democracy, all are promised that no barrier will be raised to their pursuit of health, happiness, liberty, and justice, for it is recognized that the fullest achievement of each of us must be encouraged not only for the individual, but for the benefit of all. Equity demands that this be equally true for all of our citizens. Herein lies the paradox. Americans love freedom and the right to pursue individual ability to its fullest and yet resent those who have developed high levels of intelligence. They love egalitarianism and declare that none should be seen as more able than any other and yet demand high achievement in the economic and professional fields at home and in competition with other nations of the world.

It is ironic that the 32 writers and reviewers of the report on national excellence still find that the most able learners are among those who still have need for equity (Ross, 1993). Having equal opportunity does not mean having the same opportunity; it means having experiences available that are uniquely appropriate for each individual. It promises that whatever your talent or interest, whatever your skill or ability, you will have every opportunity to develop that uniqueness to its fullest extent. Offering a talented artist and a brilliant mathematician the same experience in art and math is not equity; equity is offering them an equal opportunity to pursue their individual goals toward excellence. Every student has a right to an equal opportunity to a quality educational experience; however, that should not be interpreted to be the same experience. As Thomas Jefferson once said, "There is nothing more unequal than equal treatment of unequal people."

Our political and social system is based on democratic principles. The school, as an extension of those principles, purports to provide an equal educational opportunity for all children to develop their talents to the fullest potential. And all children includes gifted children. Therefore, for truly equal opportunity, a variety of learning experiences must be available at many levels so that all children and youth can be educated at their level of development. All children should be allowed to develop their talents and abilities to the level of their highest potential.

Unfortunately, schools are too often organized by age and not by assessed needs and achievements and, because of this lone criteria for grouping, may not be providing the equity of opportunity students require to meet their diverse and unique needs. With needs that range far beyond the age-graded curriculum in which they are commonly placed, 32 of our country's leading educators have agreed that &ted students are among the least well-served special needs population in the current school system (Ross, 1993). At- tempts are made to provide services for leamers who meet grade-level

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 2

2:08

03

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Societal Ideologies and Gifed Education

expectations, and many special provisions and services are available for learners who are slow or disabled whether they are placed in mainstream classrooms or special programs. For the grfted among us, however, the belief remains in much of the educational community that they should be able to succeed on their own, that no challenge is needed to aid in their growth. Such attitudes and beliefs are the result of a serious lack of infor- mation about learning (Archambault et al., 1993).

"Programsfor Gifted Students Promote Elitism and Cause Some Students to Believe They Are Superior to Others."

In the past there has been much reference to the term elitism when referring to education for gifted individuals; the term is often used to explain why educational provisions for these students are not made. But the problem may lie in the meaning given to the word. If one means "the chosen one or the select group," as though the existence of giftedness came only as a bestowing of riches or honor from a higher authority, we might justifiably treat such individuals as an already accomplished population who need only try and their every wish or thought would be fulfilled. Such individuals would, of course, need no help. They could get along quite well with their already fully functioning gifts. If, however, we mean "a group chosen because of some special talent, skill, or ability, which, if fostered, could become truly outstanding (such as athletic prowess, musical talent, intellectual achievement, or business acumen)," elitism is necessary, justifi- able and proper for the benefit of society as a whole. In the early 1950s, Margaret Mead (1954), noted anthropologist, spoke of the gifted child in American society. Americans were observed to have a narrow competitive range: All success, to be approved, must result from effort, abstinence, and suffering. The very term used to label children who exhibit high intellectual ability, the gifted, indicates that their success has been given, not earned. Therefore, gdtedness is to be viewed with suspicion, if not outright hostility.

If they learn easily, they are penalized for being bored when they have nothing to do; if they excel in some outstanding way, they are penalized as being conspicuously better than the peer group. . . . The culture tries to make the child with a gift into a one-sided person, to penalize him at every turn, to cause him trouble, in making friends and to create condi- tions conductive to the development of a neurosis. Neither teachers, the parents of other children, nor the child's peers will tolerate a Wun- derkind. (p. 213)

Mead (1954), however, suggested solutions:

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 2

2:08

03

Dec

embe

r 20

14

B. Clark

The more diversified, the more complex the activities within which children are encouraged to play a role the better the chance for . . . the gfted child to exercise his special talent . . . much more than rewards and praise, the gifted child needs scope, material on which his imagination can feed, and opportunities to exercise it. (p. 214)

The given definition of the term elite indicates that it is meant to recognize a group to which one chooses to belong out of interest or to which one is chosen for a particular outstanding ability; "the choice or best of anything considered collectively" (Webster, 1996, p. 632). Curiously, it is acceptable to be elite in some areas, but not in others. To have a powerful team in football, basketball, or any other sport is an elite group that is celebrated. However, as Mead found in her day, those students whose intelligence is expressed through advanced study, astute problem solving, quick thinking, or many other attributes of gifted students are not well tolerated by the school system or the society it reflects. The exception occurs in schools that celebrate winners of academic contests and national academic competi- tions. In fact, many educators would abandon all attempts to allow differ- entiated provisions for gfted students because, in their belief, such pro- grams might promote elitism, even though the research (Delcourt, Loyd, Comell, & Goldberg, 1994; Kulik, 1992) consistently shows that students who are given the opportunity to work with intellectual peers are less self-centered and have a more realistic self-view and achieve far more academically.

It is often valued to be a part of an elite group as an adult, although during childhood these very abilities may cause serious problems for the child. For example, to be a Nobel Prize Laureate as an adult is a laudatory form of elitism that is honored and promoted; however, to have such extreme levels of ability as a child creates concern among educators and prompts questions about appropriate programs and placement. To be a remarkably able mathematician as an adult is valued; however, except for academic contests and scholarship opportunities, classmates and teachers alike are suspicious of such children often using derogatory names to identify them (Davis & Rirnm, 1994; Jackson, Famiglietti, & Robinson, 1981; Marland, 1972; New- land, 1976; Silverman, 1993; Webb, Meckstroth, & Tolan, 1982). Unless they are also athletic, they may well find themselves isolated or considered unsociable as they pursue goals with such intensity that they take little time for more "normal" pursuits.

It is interesting that although most people perceive themselves to be in favor of all persons being given the opportunity to achieve the highest level of their ability, many believe that it would be inequitable for one person or group of people to be seen to have more ability or be more clever or

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 2

2:08

03

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Societal Ideologies and Gifted Education

"smarter" than other people or groups of persons. The fear of the term elitism often represents this paradox. As expressed by the 20 members of the steering committee for the report on national excellence (Ross, 1933),

These two beliefs-a distrust of the intellect and an assumption that people should be allowed to develop to their full potential-have clashed throughout American history and have muddled efforts to provide a quality education for the nation's most promising students. (p.13)

"All Children Are Gifted. "

All students are valuable, all students are important, and all students should be allowed to develop to their highest potential; however, all stu- dents are not Hted. The termgifted is only a label to designate the students "who require services or activities not ordinarily provided by the school in order to fully develop such capabilities" (Improving America's Schools Act of 1994, Definition from Title XIV, known as the Javits Ad, Xtle 10, Part B). The capabilities to which the law refers include intellectual, creative, artistic, leadership, or academic that are found at high levels. Obviously, not all children have these needs and yet, in a misguided effort to assert the value of all children, a statement such as "all children are @led" is mistakenly made. The problem is that such a statement can then be used to dismiss the unique educational provisions needed by causing such services to seem unnecessary.

Such a statement also exposes the lack of understanding of the develop- ment that has occurred that requires the use of this term. Although some in education are attempting to replace the term gifted with other terms that may be perceived to be less offensive, the fact remains that as schools are now organized, some term is needed to allow children who are experiencing this advanced and accelerated development to have access to appropriate learning experiences. When the interaction between the genetic structure and the environmental opportunities of an individual is stimulating and appropriately nurturing, the cellular structure of the brain actually changes (Clark, 1997; Diamond, 1986,1988; Maggio, 1971). Among these changes research has found, are more branches within the dendritic system; more powerful biochemical support within and surrounding the neural cell; greater myelination on the axon of the neural cell, and more powerful and accelerated exchanges between cells at the point of the synapse than was possible in the structure prior to stimulation (Diamond, 1988; Gazzaniga, 1992; Kandel & Schwartz, 1991; Restak, 1991,1994; Scheibel, 1993). Some of the results, among others, are that the individual thinks with more com-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 2

2:08

03

Dec

embe

r 20

14

B. Clark

plexity, in more depth, and with more speed. To make it possible for the present schooling system to adapt the curriculum and instruction to incor- porate these changes, these students need to be identified and placed where they can receive appropriate learning experiences. This is the reason a label is needed and currently that label is gifted. It should not be used to connote an innate difference, but instead a need that must be met. The term f led is but an identifier that allows appropriate instructional placement and service.

Beliefs Some Educators Use to Create Limits

In addition to the statements of general beliefs about gftedness, some educators also voice unsupported beliefs that provide the basis for their actions. These actions often jeopardize appropriate educational experiences for gifted learners.

"Giftedness Can Best Be Measured by intelligence Tests and Tests of Achievement. "

Current brain research has indicated that intelligence can be developed and expressed through at least four major functional areas: (a) physi- cal/sensing; (b) emotional/social; (c) linear-rational and/or spatial-gestalt cognition; and (d) intuitive, making the expression of intelligence quite complex. Moreover, these functional areas combine when in use and the limits of brain function have not, as yet, been discovered (Diamond, 1986, 1988; MacLean, 1978; Pribram, 1977; Restak, 1991,1994). "Intelligence" tests measure only a sample of the linear-rational cognitive ability of a person, and because intelligence can be expressed in many other ways, such a limited sample of only one functional area, cognition, cannot be seen as an adequate measure of the universe of intelligence (Clark, 1997; Gardner, 1983; Guilford, 1967; Sternberg, 1985).

Although valuable in that it can provide estimates of abilities that can be predictive of success on school related tasks, the "intelligence" test does not identify giftedness in many areas, and it does not suggest the potential of a person in any. The narrow application of such testing can result in the use of a single score for the identification of gifted students rather than the use of more comprehensive case studies. Such practices are built on the faulty assumption that intelligence is measurable by the IQ score, is innate, and is a stable trait. None of these assumptions canbe supported in light of current research. Identification of gftedness is a complex task and requires a variety of samples of a person's abilities from many areas of brain function.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 2

2:08

03

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Societal Ideologies and Gifed Education

"lf Students Are Really Gifted They Can Never Be Bored, Because They Can Always Find Something to Do. "

Such a belief can serve as the explanation for considering gifted students who show boredom or are unmotivated as misidentified. In fact, learning never occurs in a vacuum, and students who are advanced or learn at an accelerated pace often need materials and instruction that challenge their unique approaches to learning. Gifted students often require new, ad- vanced, and challenging ideas and concepts beyond the materials and resources that have been designated for the age group or grade level in which the child has been placed.

The group of educators that framed the government report on excellent stated the problem well, "The belief espoused in school reform that children from all economic and cultural backgrounds must reach their full potential has not been extended to America's most talented students. They are underchallenged and therefore underachieve" (Ross, 1993, p. 5).

"What Is Good for Gifted Students Is Good for Everyone. A Good Teacher Can Teach Any Student, Because if Good Teaching Is Used, That Is A12 That Is Needed. "

Although good teaching practices must be the basis for all teaching excellence, the appropriate education of gifted students does not stop with these important concepts and strategies. Gifted youngsters often think differently and have different interests from those of their age mates (Clark, 1997). They usually enter school having already developed many of the basic skills, sometimes to high levels. They have areas of interest that have developed into advanced areas of content. Most schools seek to develop skills for partiupation in society, not the re-creation of society; they tend to develop consumers of information, seldom innovators and initiators of information. Re-creation, innovation, and initiation are typical traits found in gifted children and youth resulting in a different view of the world and different educational needs.

Therefore, in addition to the need for exemplary educational techniques that support the learning of all students, teachers of students who are gifted need some special abilities. They must know how to differ the pace of instruction, to accelerate or go in depth in learning, and provide for advanced content because these are common needs of gifted students. They must know how to (a) develop high degrees of complexity and the interrelations in and among areas of content; (b) provide novelty and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 2

2:08

03

Dec

embe

r 20

14

B. Clark

enrichment; and (c) accept and extend intensity, divergence, and creative solutions. All children require good teaching, however, in direct contradic- tion to the belief being discussed, special added teaching abilities, materials, and strategies are needed by teachers of gifted students because gifted students have specific needs and require additional challenges if they are to make continuous progress (Clark, 1997; Rogers, 1989). Gifted students may think in alternative ways, produce diverse products, and bring intui- tion and innovation to the learning experience. They are often idealistic and sensitive to fairness, justice, accuracy, and the global problems facing hu- mankind and should be given a forum for expressing these concerns. They may be intense, persistent, and goal-directed in their pursuit of knowledge. Gifted learners often need to question generalizations, offer alternative solutions, and engage in complex and profound levels of thought. These learners may be high achieving in some areas of the curriculum and not in others, so that thoughtful, knowledgeable placement is a necessity. Teachers of @ed students must be comfortable with all these differences, with outrageous expressions of humor, and interests that are beyond the ability of the age peers, outside of the grade level curriculum, and in areas of inquiry that are unexplored or unknown.

"Accelerating the Curriculum for All Students Meets the Needs of Gifted Learners. Accelerated Schools Make Gifted Programs Unnecessa y. "

All students must have opportunities for challenging learning experi- ences. However, those challenges will not be the same either in content or pace of instruction for every student. Increased speed of thought processing is one of the commonly accepted characteristics of higher levels of intelli- gence. Gifted students learn faster and process information more quickly. It would be no more possible to ask gifted students to slow down this process than it would be to ask slower processing students to think more quickly. Neither student can do what is being asked. A@ed student should be encouraged to learn faster than age peers and that pace of learning should be provided for and respected.

With the drop in difficulty that is admittedly occurring with the curricu- lum in many schools (Archambault et al., 1993), some acceleration of content and pace for all students would be a positive move. However, to speed up the learning process to the pace of the gdted student would be inappropriate for other learners in the regular classroom and inhibit their chances for learning.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 2

2:08

03

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Societal Ideologies and Gifted Education

In the vision of schools of excellence described by the committee of experts in the report on National Excellence (Ross, 1993), it is recommended that "all children progress through challenging material at their own pace. Students are grouped and regrouped based on their interests and needs. Achieving success for all students is not equated with achieving the same results for all students" (p. 29).

"The Best Way to Learn Something Is to Teach It. Relearning and Reviewing Never Hurt Any Student."

Such a belief results in grfted students relearning concepts and skills that they have already mastered and has led too frequently to the practice of using &ed students as tutors for slower students in the classroom. Such activities have been used to fill the time of the student who finishes assigned work early, relieving the teacher of additional planning for such a student and simultaneously providing help to students who require extra support (Archambault et al., 1993). Gifted students must have the opportunity to be taught instead of being used as a tutor or a teaching assistant for the major part of their school day.

This situation has been especially noticeable since the emphasis on cooperative learning groups has become an integral part of classroom organization. Too often, in an effort to maintain the standards they require of themselves, gdted students placed in a heterogeneous learning group will assume the major part of the research, writing, and presentation tasks while also trying to tutor other members of the group so that the group result will not be at a level that is unacceptably low to these gifted students.

Although sharing with classmates is an important experience for ghed students socially, the overuse of group projects and the continual use of gfted students as tutors will prevent them from engaging in their own educational challenges and create high levels of frustration for them and for their classmates. This issue has been of such concern that the National Association for Gifted Children has developed a position paper (Coopera- tive Learning, 1997) to guide teachers in the appropriate use of cooperative learning as a strategy within a range of instructional strategies. The paper urges that it not be used to replace differentiated services for gdted students.

There is a limit to the educational value of going over again and again materials and concepts that have already been mastered. Gifted students need to be grouped and interact with other &ed children for some part of their learning experience so that they may be understood, engaged, and challenged (Clark, 1997; Johnson & Johnson, 1989).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 2

2:08

03

Dec

embe

r 20

14

B. Clark

"We Should Not Have Special Programs for Gifted Students. In a Democracy W e Cannot Just@j Some Children Getting More Than Others in Our Public Schools."

Although the last sentence is true, it does not have any application to the previous statement that would deny special programs to gfted students. We cannot justdy providing more and we should not provide just more for gfted students. One of the biggest problems in gifted education is that many teachers and parents believe that gLfted children just need more. With that belief, teachers often assign 30 problems to an advanced math student while the other students are asked to do 15. While other students read three books for an assignment, gifted students are often asked to read six.

Because gifted students finish assignments more quickly, they are often asked to do more-more of the same type of material. Appropriate educa- tion for gifted students would not simply have them do more, instead they would be assigned material at their level of difficulty, pacing, and depth, and they should be allowed to pursue inquiry beyond the known, produc- ing unusual, complex, and creative work appropriate to their level of intellectual development. Not just more or different, but appropriate edu- cational experiences are what is needed (California Department of Educa- tion, 1994; Kaplan, 1986,1995).

When the material and the pacing used in the classroom does not allow gifted students to grow and learn, special provisions must be made. When there is no provision for gifted students to interact with intellectual peers, ways in which such grouping can occur must be planned. Research indi- cates that these are among the minimum provisions that gifted students must have if they are to continue to develop and not regress losing ability and motivation (Feldhusen & Moon, 1992; Goldring, 1990; Kulik, 1992; Rogers, 1991; Shields, 1995).

For many gifted students, an appropriately individualized classroom can provide the differentiated materials and instruction needed; however, for gifted students whose pace and level of learning is siphcantly beyond their classmates, their least restrictive environment may not be the regular classroom. These students will often need special classes and mentoring to grow and learn.

“inclusion Is a Moral Issue. The Only Equitable Approach to Sewing Students in Public Education Is to Place All Students Heterogeneously in the Regular Classroom."

America's schools are, and for 20 years have been, engaged in efforts to make education for the nation's children more effective, more inclusive of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 2

2:08

03

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Societal ldeologies and Gifted Education

all populations and cultures, and more productive of quality performance. Although these are goals that are unquestionably desirable, their imple- mentation must be balanced between remediating unfair practices for those who have not benefitted from previous structures and practices and chal- lenging those who have been stifled by them. The focus must not be one-sided; the refom of American education requires balance between approaches that develop unused talent and those that nurture outstanding talent. Educators, students, and parents alike are becoming disenchanted with the "total" approaches-total heterogeneous grouping, total inclusion, total group instruction. Balance seems to be the needed key.

The inclusion movement can be a most positive force in education if it is used to benefit students, not just to support an abstract principle of nar- rowly and inappropriately interpreted egalitarianism. The inclusion move- ment has drawn the attention of regular education to some of the provisions necessary if learning is to be optimized for any student. It is suggested that inclusive classrooms support diverse learners and honor their diversity by (a) establishing and maintaining a warm, accepting classroom; (b) imple- menting a multilevel, multirnodality curriculum; (c) using thematic instruc- tion, critical thinking, problem solving, and authentic assessment; and (d) including academic and cognitive challenges at many levels (Sapon-Shevin, 1995). Only to the extent that a classroom has these elements in place can it accommodate diversity.

Gifted students have always been primarily served in regular classrooms (Archambault et al., 1993; Cox, Daniel, & Boston, 1985). However, the regular classroom, when used as the only educational option, may not be the best placement for many special needs students, either socially or educationally Inclusion of students in classrooms where they are not able to benefit from the experiences being offered is of questionable value to them and often a detriment to the pace, depth, and level of instruction of other students. This is true whether the students are too far ahead of the others or behind them.

Detracking is a movement that has attempted to correct a structure of learning experiences that allowed unexarnined placement of students to- gether in tracks over time. Some of those involved in the detracking movement have taken this needed correction to the level of abuse by making the idea a moral issue, obfuscating the important educational issue (Oakes, 1985, 1990). The result has been that an effort to improve the structure and organization of instruction has tried to rob teachers of the valuable tool of grouping students so that their experiences could be structured to best meet their needs. It is far from moral or democratic to deny advanced, appropriately paced, complex, and divergent materials and instruction to students who will lose ability, interest, and motivation

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 2

2:08

03

Dec

embe

r 20

14

B. Clark

without such modifications. It is also not reasonable to cause students with differing needs to meet the same goals or achieve the same outcomes. To insist that all teachers in every classroom can deliver diverse modifications appropriately to every student without recognition of individual differ- ences is an impossible expectation. Flexible grouping will always be impor- tant so that teachers can effectively manage the many and varied needs of students within and among classrooms. As long as the practice of age grouping is the major criterion for organizing learning, both homogeneous and heterogeneous grouping flexibly practiced and carefully planned around the assessed needs, pacing, and learning patterns of students will be necessary to ensure success for every learner.

The problems of implementing the inclusive classroom faced by teachers today include (a) lack of teacher preparation for diversity and differentia- tion of curriculum and instruction; (b) lack of ability to design and imple- ment problem-based, meaning-centered curriculum; and (c) lack of knowl- edge of how to develop the conditions to optimize learning. From my experience, decisions for how much inclusion into the regular classroom is useful must be made on an individual basis and carefully considered from the perspective of the students, both those to be included and those already in the regular classroom. The question to serve as a guide is: "Where can each student best meet his or her needs?"

The strongest programs for gdted students, as well as for other special needs students, involve choice among an array of services and careful assessment of the student's needs when providing such services. When the needs of the gifted are considered and the educational program is designed to meet these needs, these students make sigruficant gains in achievement, and their sense of competence and well-being is promoted (Delcourt, Loyd, Comell, & Goldberg, 1994; Kulik, 1992; Rogers, 1991; Westberg, Archam- bault, Dobyns, & Salvin, 1993). With appropriate learning experiences, gifted students learn to work even more efficiently and effectively; they develop good problem-solving skills and see solutions from many view- points. They experience concepts and materials in a dynamic relationship, and they can use their vast amount of knowledge to serve as a background for unlimited learning. Appropriate educational experiences allow them to grow-a right of every child.

How Best to Change the Limiting Societal Ideologies and Create Wider Acceptance for Gifted Education

As the limiting beliefs of society-and specifically the educational com- munity-are reviewed, it becomes clear that acceptance of gfted education will only come with the wider dissemination of a current knowledge base

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 2

2:08

03

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Societal Ideologies and G$ed Education

from all areas of research that affect these long-held perceptions. Unfortu- nately much of these data are outside of the usual educational literature.

For example, even as the information about the development and func- tion of the brain becomes more accepted, much of the reporting that is informing educators is found in the popular press and superficial how-to- do-it manuals unsupported by actual knowledge of the neurosciences. Although many excellent articles and books are available, educators must seek those that are supported by research. Oversimplification can be mis- leading at best and dangerously in error at its worst. Such information can limit us and those we teach to its limits. In the attempt to simphfy the data and make it practical for the classroom, many authors have failed to communicate the exquisite complexity and interrelations of brain function. This simplification has allowed wide acceptance of a view of intelligence and its development that seems fragmented and partial. There must, of course, be metaphors and analogies to help us communicate the intricacies of such complex data and relate them to the activities of the classroom, but they must be seen as metaphors, not a serration or a sequence of steps that will name for each student a specific category of abilities in which he or she is to be identified and nurtured. It is a universe of intelligence that we must explore, not a limited number of separate behavioral identities that we might develop.

With this in mind as only one example of the daunting task ahead, the one most compelling recommendation for changing the limiting societal ideologies and creating wider acceptance for gifted education is to explore ways to build and disseminate a solid knowledge base. This knowledge base accrued from current neuroscience, systems theory psychology, cog- nitive learning, and other relevant fields of study. It grounds and commu- nicates brain function, and its relation to learning, to the growth of intelli- gence and to the understanding of high levels of intelligence that we now refer to as giftedness. This would include the data that show:

The impact of early environments on the growth of intelligence. The unlimited and dynamic nature of change within brain function in response to stimulation. The vast potentialities and uniqueness of genetic endowments in- cluding the changes in genetic structure in response to environ- mental impact. The accurate relationship of age to learning, including the essential role of experience in maturation. The sigruficance to teaching and learning of the theme of unity coming from diverse and seemingly unrelated fields of study in a myriad of discipline-specific terns and examples.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 2

2:08

03

Dec

embe

r 20

14

B. Clark

The learning power resulting from the integrative use of the func- tions of the brain including but certainly not limited to the ra- tional-linear and spatial-gestalt processes of cognition. The amazing potential of the insightful, intuitive, highly synthetic function of the brain and the meaning it has for human beings. The strategies that can tap the elegant learning abilities of the human system when given even reasonable support from a responsive environment. The enhancing or limiting nature of emotion in the learning process and the biological mechanisms that operate to support this process.

The beliefs, perceptions, and ideologies of society--especially of that part of society we refer to as the educational community-give meaning and direction to society's actions. But as Jim Fadiman, a psychologist of the human potential movement of the 1970s, once said, "Your beliefs do not tell you the limits, they only tell you your limits. The things you think are impossible are just things you do not believe in." If we are to make a positive difference in what human beings can be, how much of their potential they can develop and enjoy, and, indeed, if we are to ever discover what is possible for any of us, we must start by dispelling the limiting ideologies society now holds. Much data is available that can be used. It is up to us as educators to find a way to bring it into the life of every educator, every person who cares about children, and every one who touches the life of a child. We must reject the easy answer and the simplistic schema, for we are responsible for children that are pushing the limits and the very boundaries of knowledge and being. This is the challenge that is worth our time.

References

Archambault, Jr., F. X., Westberg, K. L., Brown, S. W., Hallmark, B. W., Emmons, C. L., & Zhang, W. (1993). Regular clnssroom practices with gifted students: Results of a national survey of classroom teachers. (Research Monograph 93101). Storrs: National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of Comecticut.

Berg, P., & Singer, M. (1992). Dealing with genes: The language of heredity. Mill Valley, CA: University Science Books.

Bloom, 8. (1964). Stability and change in human characteristics. New York: Wiiey. Bodrova, E., & Leong, D. J. (1995). Tools of the mind: The Vygotskian approach to early childhood

education. New York: MerriU/Prentice Hall. Buell, S., &Coleman, P. (1981). Quantitative evidence for selective dendritic growth in normal

human aging but not in senile dementia. Brain Research, 214,2341. Califomia Department of Education and the California Association for the Gifted (1994).

Differentiating the Core Curriculum and instruction to provide advanced learning opportunities. Sacramento, CA: Author.

Cancro, R. (Ed.). (1971). Intelligence: Genetic and environmental influences. New York: Grune & Stratton.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 2

2:08

03

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Societal Ideologies and Gifted Education

Chomsky, N. (1%6). Cartesian Linguistics. New York: Harper &Row. Clark, B. (1997). G m i n g up pped (5th ed.) Columbus, OH: Menill/ Prentice Hall. News from NAGC. (1997, July). Cooperative learning for gifted students. Carmunique, 9(4), 3. Conlan, R., (Ed.). (1993). Iourney through the mind and body: Blueprintfor life. Alexandria, VA:

Time-Life. Cox, J., Daniel, N., & Boston, B. (1985). Educating able learners: Programs and promising practices.

Austin: University of Texas Press. Davis, G. A., & Rimm, S. B. (1994). Education of the gifted and talented (3rd 4.) . Needham

Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Delcourt, M.,Loyd, B., Comell, D., &Goldberg,M. (1994). Evaluation oftheefictsof programming

awangements on student learning outcomes. Charlottesville: University of Virginia, The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.

Dettrner, P. (1985). Attitudes of school role groups toward learning needs of gifted students. Roeper RPuiew, 7,253-257.

Diamond, M. (1986). An update on the brain research. Paper presentation at The Developing Brain: New Frontiers of Research Conference, University of California, Los Angeles.

Diamond, M. (1988). Enriching heredity: The impact of theenvironment on theanatomy of the brain. New York: Free Press.

Feldhusen, J. F., &Moon, S. M. (1992). Grouping gifted students: Issues and concerns. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36(2), 63-67.

Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind. New York: Basic Books Gazzaniga, M. (1992). Nature's mind: The biological roots of thinking, emotions, sexuality, langunge,

intelligence. New York: Basic Books. ~ o l d r i n i E. B. (1990). Assessing the status of information on classroom organizational

frameworks for gifted students. Iournal of Educational Research, 83,313-326. Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. New York: McGraw-Hill. Hutchinson, M. (1986). Megabrain. New York: Simon & Schuster. Improving America's Schools Act of 1994, Title MV, 103D U.S.C., Report 103-761. Jackson, N., Famiglietti, J., & Robinson, H. (1981). Kindergarten and first grade teachers'

attitudes toward early entrants, intellectually advanced students and average students. Iournal for the Education of the G@ed, 4,(2) 132-142.

Johnson, R., &Johnson, D. (1989). What to say to parents of gifted students. The cooperative link, 5, 1.

Kagan, J. (1971). Chnge and continuity in infancy. New York: Wiley. Kandel, E., & Schwartz, J. (1991). Principles of neural science (3rd 4.) . New York: Elsevier. Kaplan, S. (1986). The Grid: A model to construct differentiated curriculum for the gifted. In

J . Renzulli (Ed.), Systems and modelsfor developing programs for the giJted and tal&ted (pp. 182-193). Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.

Kaplan, S. (1995). Differentiated professional development. Communicator, 26(3), 1,34-35. Krech, D. (1%9). Psychoneurobiochemeducation. Phi Delta Kapan, L, 370-375. Krech, D. (1970). Don't use the kitchen sink approach to enrichment. Today's Education, 59,

30-32. Kulik, J. A. (1992). An analysis of the research on ability grouping: Historical and contemporary

perspectives. Stom: The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut.

Larsen, M. D., & Griffin, N. S. (1992). Public opinion regarding support for special programs for gifted children. Research submitted for publication.

L e ~ d X r g , E. (1967). Bwlogicalfoundations of language. New York: Wiley. MacLean, P. (1978). A mind of three minds: Educating the triune brain. In J. Chall &A. Mirsky

(Eds.), Education and the brain: The seventy-seventh yearbook of the Natwnal Society for the Study of Education, Part I1 (p. 308-342), Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 2

2:08

03

Dec

embe

r 20

14

B. Clark

Maggio, E. (1971). Psychophysiology of learning and memory. Springfield, n: Charles C. Thomas. Marland, S. (1972). Education of the @fled and talented. Report to the Congress of the United

States by the U.S. Commissioner of Education. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Mead, M. (1954). The gifted child in the American culture today. journal of Teacher Education, 5,211-214.

Newland, T. E. (1976). The gifted in socioeducational perspective. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Oakes, J. (1985). Keeping track: How schools structure inequality. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Oakes, J. (1990). Beyond tracking: Making the best ofschools. Paper presented for Cocking Lecture at the 44th NCPEA Conference, Los Angeles, California State University.

Pribram, K. (1971). Languages of the bruin: Experimental paradoxes and principles in neuropsychol- ogy. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Pribram, K. (1977). Primary reality may be frequency realm. Brain/Mind Bulletin, 2,l-3. Restak, R. (1991). The brain h s a mind of its own. New York: Crown. Restak, R. (1994). The modular brain. New York: Scribner's. Rogers, K. (1989). Training teachers of the gifted: What do they need to know? Roeper Review,

11,145-150. Rogers, K. (1991). The relationship of grouping practices to the education of the gffted and talented

learner. Storrs: National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of Con- necticut.

Rosenzweig, M. (1%6). Environmental complexity, cerebral change and behavior. American Psychologist, 21,321-332.

Rosenzweig, M. (1984). Experience, memory and the brain. American Psychologist, 39,365-376. Ross, P. 0. (1993). National excellence: A casefor developing America's talent. Washington, DC:

U.S. Govenunent Printing Office. Sapon-Shevin, M. (1995, December/ January). Why N e d students belong in inclusive schools.

Educational Leadership, 64-70. Scheibel, A. (1993, July). Review of how the bruin operates: Application and implications. A

presentation at The Developing Brain: New Frontiers of Research Conference, University of California, Los Angeles.

Shields, C. (1995). A comparison study of student attitudes and perceptions in homogeneous and heterogeneous classrooms. Roeper Ratiew, 17,234-238.

Silverman, L. (1993). Counseling the@fied & talented. Denver, CO: Love. Sternberg, R. (1985). Beyond IQ: A friarchic theury of human intelligence. Cambridge, MA:

Cambridge University Press. Thompson, R., Berger, T., &Berry, S. (1980). An introduction to the anatomy, physiology, and

chemistry of the brain. In M. Wittrock, (Ed.), The 6rain and psychology, New York: Academic. Teyler, T. (1977). An introduction to the neurosciences. In M. Wittrock (Ed.), The human brain.

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Uzgiris, I. (1989). Issue: Infant intelligence test arouses controversy. ASCD Update, 31(5), 4-5. Vygotsky, L. S. (1974). The problem of age-periodization of child development (M. Zender &

8. Zenter, Trans.). Human Development, 17,24-4. Webb, J., Meckstroth, E., & Tolan, S. (1982). Guiding the gifted child. Columbus, OH: Ohio

Psychology Pub. Webster's new unabridged dictionay (1996). New York: Barnes & Noble Books. Westberg, K. L., Archambault, F. X., Jr., Dobyns, S. M., & Salvin, T. J. (1993). An observational

study of instructional and curricular practices used with gifted and talented students in regular classrooms. Storrs, CT: The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 2

2:08

03

Dec

embe

r 20

14