Dayton Daily News education reporter Scott Elliott writes about schools, kids, teaching and learning.
Home > Blogs > Get on the Bus > Archives > 2005 > November > 25 > Entry
What makes a genius kid?
Sunday’s New York Times magazine had a long article on the problems of gifted education. There are lots of interesting nuggets in the story, including a study that shows that the “troubled genius” is a myth. Exceptionally bright people often are products of stable, supportive homes and have normal growing up experiences.
The lack of quality gifted programs is a prime complaint I hear frequently from parents. Where gifted programs even exist in schools, it’s often just a once a week pull out program with a few activities. That is far short of what gifted advocates suggest — systems that identify true genius and immerse the student in an environment that will develop that potential.
In fact, the kids who are typically identified for school-based gifted programs are not usually truly gifted kids. That’s because they are often identified for the program by a classroom teacher, and teachers tend to pick the kids who are good students. But there’s a difference between a good student and a real genius. The gifted kids are harder to spot because they may be under achievers or very gifted in one area and typical in other areas.
School districts, on tight budgets, have a hard time justifying more extensive programs that serve just a few kids. But as a nation, don’t we need these exceptional students to develop their talents? Do districts have responsibility to do more?
Permalink | Comments (2) | Categories: Teaching and Learning
Comments
By Margaret DeLacy
November 27, 2005 12:46 AM | Link to this
Scott Elliott wrote that “School districts, on tight budgets, have a hard time justifying more extensive programs that serve just a few kids.” There are many more than just a “few” gifted students. According to the “State of the States 2004-2005” prepared by the National Association for Gifted Children, Ohio alone has identified nearly 300,000 talented and gifted students. These students, properly educated, could make a huge contribution to our future. Districts and taxpayers are often afraid that providing services for these students will prove to be expensive. In fact, although there are some costs associated with identifying these students and planning services for them, the costs are very low. Research has shown conclusively that the most effective interventions for gifted students are acceleration (skipping) and ability grouping. Acceleration actually saves money and ability-grouped classes (such as accelerated math classes) usually cost no more than other classes. The real cost is political. Politicians often prefer to sacrifice students’ education and welfare rather than support interventions they fear will be seen as “elitist”. In fact, surveys have found signficant public support for gifted programs. What happens when we don’t provide programs for Talented and Gifted students? They spend their entire school career sitting in classrooms where they are taught material they have already mastered, learning virtually nothing. Many of them lose the study and work habits they will need to be successful in the adult world. As a parent, I know that this neglect causes emotional and social harm to the children. As a taxpayer, I know that keeping children in classrooms where they already know what they are supposed to be learning wastes nearly every single tax dollar being spent on their schooling. It simply makes no sense to spend our tax dollars this way, even in “districts with tight budgets.” In fact, tight budgets make it more important than ever to spend our scarce education dollars strategically. Taxpayers should insist that their hard-earned money be spent to teach students things they don’t already know. We already have the tools to make this happen; all we need is the commitment. Margaret DeLacyBy Mary
November 25, 2005 12:27 PM | Link to this
I hope to stir up some much more articulate sources to help answer your questions on gifted students. To me, money is not so much the issue as understanding, priorities and policies. Yes, we need to better serve gifted students to enhance our collective chances of survival as well as our quality of life. By the definition used by the Ohio Department of Education, there are many more gifted students (over 20% of students in many districts)than your discussion would indicate in the areas of superior cognitive, specific academic ability, creative thinking, and visual and/or performing arts. It is dereliction of duty for the education system to not better serve these students. Otherwise, parents should be given vouchers and freedom to create their own educational programs with colleges, etc.