Fundamentals of Gifted Education

Considering Multiple Perspectives

Carolyn M. Callahan, Holly L. Hertberg-Davis, Carolyn M. Callahan, Holly L. Hertberg-Davis

• Éditeur: Routledge
• Année: 2017
• ISBN:
  9781317275664
• Édition: 2
• Sujet: Education
• Sous-sujet: Educational Psychology

The field of gifted education is characterized by a perplexing array of perspectives concerning such fundamental issues as definition, identification, curriculum, social and emotional development, and underserved populations. Fundamentals of Gifted Education provides a coherent framework for planning effective programs, providing appropriate educational services, and evaluating programs for the gifted. Parts are organized around fundamental issues confronting the field and follow a common structure: an introductory chapter that provides an overview of the theme of that part as well as guiding points and questions for the reader followed by representative point-of-view chapters written by leading experts that provide varied perspectives on the topic at hand.

p.1

1

INTRODUCTION

Holly L. Hertberg-Davis and Carolyn M. Callahan

The first year I (Holly) taught the Introduction to the Education of the Gifted course at the University of Virginia, I imagined it as a course in which students’ knowledge and understanding about gifted education would be expanded and refined. I anticipated that students’ burning questions about What is giftedness? How do we find it? How do we serve it? would be answered and summarily put to rest. That assumption was, of course, the classic case of a teacher forgetting what it was like to be a student. When I really think about it, I remember that during my first year of doctoral work I walked into Carol Tomlinson’s Introduction to Teaching the Gifted course wide-eyed, full of certainty from my own teaching experiences about what giftedness was and how to ignite and fuel it. That was September.

In December, I walked out of the final exam thinking, I know way more than I knew when I came in in September—but I am sure of way less. Nothing was simple any more. Everything was fraught with caveats and “what if ’s.” There were so many decisions, and so much rested on every single one. By spring break, I was so overwrought, in fact, that Carol recommended I buy Don’t Sweat the Small Stuff, although I think that both she and I knew that, in fact, none of this was small stuff. This was, in fact, stuff that impacted many kids’ lives and it deserved some sweat.

I recount this story to my students when they inevitably burst out, mid-semester, in frustration, “I have more questions now than I did when I started this class!” My first year, that outburst unnerved me. Now it pleases me. I know an introduction to the world of gifted education can be—and ought to be—a battleground between the often simplistic conventional myths about giftedness embedded in our society and the more complex realities that research and thoughtful practice have uncovered. I know that it can be eye-opening and even unsettling to discover that the things that we were very sure of—the prized thinking skills pull-out program, our favorite butterflies unit, the “no fail” identification matrix we’ve been using for years—may need to be reconsidered, retooled, or abandoned. But it is this constant thinking, rethinking, refining—and, most important, questioning—by those in charge of designing and implementing programming for gifted students that makes for the sort of educational experiences we can call exemplary.

What Carol did for me and my classmates—and what we have both at least attempted to do for our own students—is continually force us to think not only about “what constitutes appropriate educational experiences for gifted students?” but “what constitutes defensible educational experiences for gifted students?” That is, how can we ensure that we have identified all students who would benefit from special programming? How can we be confident that the programming, curricular, and instructional experiences we are providing to our gifted students are uniquely matched to their learning characteristics, their social and emotional challenges? How can we ensure that these experiences would not benefit all students? So much of the criticism and the skepticism about the need for gifted education come from the existence of programs in which the offered curriculum and learning experiences are not defensible, are not clearly distinguishable enough from what should be offered to all students. Field trips to art museums and space centers and “thinking skills” instruction presented in isolation of rich and challenging content in and of themselves do not constitute an appropriate education for gifted students. Whenever we make any decision concerning gifted students, we should ask: Why just for the gifted? We need to put all of our decisions to Passow’s simple-but-brilliant “Would, Could, Should” test: Would all students want to be involved in such learning experiences? Could all students participate in such learning experiences? Should all students be expected to succeed in such learning experiences? (Passow, 1982). If the answer to any of these questions is “yes,” then what we are doing does not constitute an appropriate, defensible educational experience for gifted students.

p.2

There are many questions posed in this text, but it is the question: “Can we document that the educational experiences we are providing for the students we designate as gifted deliver maximum benefit to those students and would not benefit students without that designation?” that to us seems the most crucial and the most worthy of returning to continually, in every decision—however small—we make. As we will continually reiterate throughout this text, there are no “right” answers in gifted education (although we would both argue that there are some “wrong” answers!), but we do believe that there is a right process involved in making decisions, a process that we outline below and redirect you to throughout your readings.

It is indeed true, and certainly not news, that there are numerous different—and sometimes conflicting—philosophies regarding what the purposes and responsibilities of the field of gifted education are and should be, and we present a broad range, but certainly not all, of those philosophies in this textbook. For some, the central purpose and responsibility of gifted education is to provide appropriate, and often separate, educational experiences for gifted students whose talents and abilities are evident and identifiable. For others, the central purpose and responsibility lies in developing the talents of a broad range of students, including both those whose talents are readily identifiable and those whose potential has yet to emerge. While these two approaches may seem to be relatively similar, underlying them are divergent belief systems that lead to different methods of defining and identifying giftedness and talent, different viewpoints on the appropriate settings in which to provide services, and ultimately to the provision of different curricular and instructional experiences. The existence of multiple philosophies of gifted education does not mean that these multiple approaches cannot co-exist. In fact, many of the most current definitions, identification methods, and programming and curriculum options in the field attempt to merge philosophies into cohesive and coherent approaches to attending to demands for both equity and excellence within the services we provide to gifted students.

HOW TO USE THIS TEXTBOOK

p.3

---

Figure 1.1 Decision-Making Process in Designing an Aligned Gifted Program

This textbook is designed to reflect a broad range of thinking in the field so that its readers can examine multiple options from which to choose those that best fit their needs and belief systems. Our goal in creating this text is to provide guidance—not a prescription—for educators concerned with the development of the full potential of students for whom traditional school programming fails in providing appropriate challenge and encouragement. There truly is no one right way to design or implement a program for gifted students; so much depends upon context—the population of students a school serves, the resources available, the community surrounding the school. Our goal was to give the reader a sense of the range of options, knowing that we cannot, in an introductory level text, present in-depth discussions of all options. By choosing particular points of view we recognize that some other divergent, valuable chapters could have been included. But, in using other texts we have often been frustrated that our students don’t come away with a deep sense of any one approach or with a sense of the original “voice” of a key advocate for, or creator of, a particular approach. Hence, we chose to allow you to hear those voices and to use this text as the stepping stone for further investigation of the ideas, beliefs, and models which we perceive to be representative of the various approaches and points of view in existence—and evolving—in this field.

There is, however, a line of logic that should be followed in the program creation or revision process to ensure alignment between philosophy and definition of giftedness, identification methods, offered services and educational experiences, and evaluation of both students and the program itself (see Figure 1.1). The chapters that follow provide in-depth discussion of these components; however, a brief description here of each will provide the reader a primer on basic elements of gifted education and an overview of the offerings of this textbook helpful in providing a framework for reading.

Philosophy/Definition of Giftedness

The process of creating or revising a gifted program, while essentially a cyclical process, ideally begins with consideration or reconsideration of beliefs about what it means to be gifted. The definition of giftedness that results should be reflective of the population of students that the school or school district serves as well as the characteristics, strengths and challenges, and underlying philosophy of education that the district holds. For example, in a district with a bi-modal population and general education classrooms reflecting a broad range of academic diversity, the definition of giftedness might include both high-achieving students and students with potential for performance at a high level. In a district with a generally high-achieving population served well in the regular classroom, the definition of giftedness might be more exclusive and include only students performing at the highest levels of achievement. Still other districts might focus their definitions on students with talents in math in response to a documented need for advanced math programming and a district goal of excellence for all in mathematics or STEM.

p.4

The importance of a district’s definition of giftedness cannot be overstated. The definition effectively determines who will be served by the gifted program and who will not. It answers the questions: Who are we serving? Who should we be serving? and sets the stage for the rest of the decisions made in the process of program creation or revision. Part I of this textbook provides a variety of different approaches to defining giftedness, as well as the beliefs and philosophical and research bases underlying those definitions. Some criticize the field for not being in consensus on definition, but others view the varied approaches as a healthy and energizing aspect of gifted education. (See Renzulli and Delcourt’s discussion of this matter in Chapter 5.) As long as underlying beliefs about what should be valued in education vary, so will definitions of educational constructs; those readers looking for definitive answers will necessarily be sorely disappointed. However, those readers who are looking for a definition that rings true to their beliefs will be heartened to see options.

Identification Processes

Once a district has determined who it will serve, it then must determine the most effective and defensible process for finding those students. Identification processes and the assessment tools used in these processes should be closely aligned with the definition and reflective of best practices in measurement and assessment. For example, if Sunny Valley School District determines that giftedness means demonstrated talent in music and the arts and the neighboring district, Waterfield School District, determines that giftedness means high general academic aptitude, the identification processes used in each district should be vastly different. Detailed looks at a variety of different identification methods—from traditional approaches to those that are innovative—along with exemplary practices in identification are explored in depth in Part II of this text.

Service Delivery Options and Programming Models

Service delivery options and programming models refer to the structures through which services are provided to gifted students. Some service delivery approaches focus primarily on the settings in which gifted students are served; others encompass both the settings in which students learn and the content offered within these settings. These options should be tailored to the needs of the identified students and clearly reflect the definition of giftedness used in the district. In Sunny Valley School District (see example above), where giftedness is defined as musical and artistic ability, service delivery options might include separate advanced classes with content focusing on music and art, push-in services during regular art or music classes, or a magnet school focused on music and the arts. In Waterfield, where general intellectual ability is served, service delivery options might include utilizing cluster grouping of gifted students alone or the district may also offer a pull-out program focused on extending and enriching the regular classroom curriculum. Once again, whatever approaches are utilized, these offerings must be aligned with the needs of the students identified for gifted services. Part III of this textbook provides closer and more in-depth descriptions of a variety of different service delivery methods. In this text, individual chapters focus on one service delivery approach and often the term “the gifted program” is used to refer to that approach. However, the term “gifted program” should be used as an umbrella term in a district to cover an array of services or “continuum of services” that may be offered. Within a given school district some students may be accelerated, some may receive all their instruction with age peers in the regular classroom using a cluster group arrangement, a small segment of the identified population may receive specialized instruction in a resource room, and even a smaller number of students may attend a full time school (e.g., in math, science and technology). Too often districts choose only one service delivery option when an array of services would provide better matches between students and instruction. Therefore, the chapters in Part III should be read as options not as either/or propositions.

p.5

Curriculum and Instruction

In the context of this text, curriculum and instruction refers to the content and learning experiences that gifted students encounter within their gifted programs. While all components of a gifted program are important, it is the fit of the curriculum and instruction that students encounter daily that determines the degree to which a gifted student’s academic program is challenging, the degree to which the student learns every day in school and the potential for healthy affective (social and emotional) development is realized. However, just as there is no single service delivery approach designed to meet the needs of all gifted students, there is no single curriculum appropriate for all gifted students. Gifted students are a diverse lot, varying from one another not only in their areas of strength and capacity for growth, but also in their learning preferences, areas of interest, and backgrounds and experiences. Like every other component of gifted services mentioned thus far, the curriculum and instruction offered within a gifted program must be aligned with the specific needs of the identified students. Furthermore, even within an identified population of gifted students, student variance can be considerable. Therefore, differentiation of curriculum and instruction within gifted programs should be considered. Part IV of this textbook explores a range of widely used curricular and instructional approaches to meeting the needs of the gifted.

Specific Populations

In many circles in the field of gifted education, the terms “special populations” and “under-served gifted” are used to designate student groups that bring a set of unique characteristics to the instructional setting. However, a cursory examination of the table of contents of this text will reveal that nearly every group one can parse from the overall gifted population has some set of unique traits that warrant attention across the dimensions of a gifted program: beliefs, philosophy, definition, identification, service delivery, curriculum, and even evaluation. Since males and females are both included it seemed the term “underserved” was not warranted; the term “specific” seems more appropriate than “special” to cover gender differences, differences across ethnic and cultural groups, geographic locations, and even differing issues around current level of performance. But we must also remember that the issues discussed in these chapters are stil...