Category Archives: Identification

Facts (or Truths?) in Gifted Education

It would seem that using a scored test that demonstrates statistically significant results which can be reported within a range with a confidence level of up to 95% would give us a fairly reasonable “fact” to guide us in gifted education, but the truth is never quite so simple. Gifted education has been plagued by myths and a lack of agreement on not only what it means to be gifted but how those identified as giftedness should be supported, leaving us with a couple of interesting facts and some truths that might help the uninitiated navigate some of the confusion.

FACT: Gifted in one school district does not guarantee gifted in another.

The truth is that despite the general consensus that we need to have a variety of methods to identify students who are gifted, this can add to the confusion of what is meant by giftedness. This can be frustrating for parents and students as not all school districts use the same measures and means to identify giftedness. In some jurisdictions, only an individually administered WISC V or SB-5 gain access to programming, while in others, group administered tests like the CCAT 7 are acceptable, while in others multiple measures looking at creativity and motivation also play a part. That said, even when using tests as a means to identification, some districts will only look at composite scores, while others will consider outstanding scores on individual batteries. Add to this the need for some gifted programs keep their numbers constant and you can see how many factors can influence what it means to gifted, making it somewhat of a moving target. Lakin (2018) suggests that what matters most is that the gifted program design reflects the needs of the students identified, whatever that process might be leading us to another controversy in the gifted community.

FACT: Gifted programming here is not always the same as gifted programming there. 

The truth is that in as much as school districts differ in how students are identified, how they support students can be very different as well. Dai and Chen (2013) have identified three different paradigms that can have an impact how gifted programming is designed. The first paradigm which they refer to as the gifted child paradigm suggests that “gifted children and adults are qualitatively different from the rest of the population” (p. 155) in how they think, feel, learn and dream about the future. This paradigm suggests a need for challenges, opportunities to work in areas of passion, like-minded peers and an affective curriculum. The second paradigm is the talent development paradigm where “domain excellence is seen as the goal of gifted education” and requires programming that does not focus so much on IQ testing but offering opportunities for students to self select into particular activities that over time can involve into programming that “addresses unique advancing needs of talented students” (p. 157). The third paradigm they identified was the differentiation paradigm which is a more recent perspective emerging from the inclusive education movement. In this paradigm “the differences in learning curve demonstrated by gifted learners are believed to be subject-specific and open to change rather than domain-general and permanent” (p. 157) and focus on support within school settings on an as needed basis.

FACT, TRUTH OR SOMETHING ELSE?: Understanding the facts and truths around identification practices, paradigms and program designs could alleviate some of the frustration/confusion we feel when one paradigm comes into conflict with another or when identification processes differ.

Dai and Chen suggest that “the articulation of paradigms helps us determine when we are comparing different kinds of apples (under the same paradigm) and when in fact we are comparing apples and oranges (different paradigms)” (p. 164). I believe that an understanding of the various assessment processes and paradigms helps us to consider the many ways that we can support this very heterogeneous group of students. In our district we support opportunities for acceleration, differentiation and pull-out as we continue to refine our identification processes and options for programming.

Click here or on the icon below to explore more FACTS about giftedness and gifted education.

40234953_10215204617401331_700846570018439168_n

References:

Dai, D. and Chen F. (2013). Three paradigms of gifted education: In search of conceptual clarity in research and practice. Gifted Child Quarterly. 57(3), 151-168.

Lakin, J. M. (2018). Making the cut in gifted selection: Score combination rules and their impact on program diversity. Gifted Child Quarterly, 62(2), 210-219. doi:10.1177/0016986217752099

Advertisements

Misdiagnosis: What We See and What We Don’t

It has been very humbling for me to attend a drawing class with my teenage daughter. The instructor tells me that it is harder for me (the old one) to see the pear we are drawing because my mind wants to draw what it thinks a pear looks like. Look for form he tells me. Recognize and mark the edges. Notice the shadows and the light.  Consider values as you begin to shade it in. Two hours and 20 sketches later, I think I am making progress. When I get stuck in my “way of seeing” he will ask if he can take a turn and I  watch to see which forms he draws, where he makes his marks and how he approaches shading.  I am startled to see things on his picture that I hadn’t seen myself and when I look back at the pear, I realize they were always there. How could I have missed it? He tells me that he has been learning to see what he is drawing for years.

Having worked with gifted children for 14 years of my career, I have come to understand that for many it can be hard to “see” children who are gifted. There are plenty of archetypes that that can inform understanding as well as varying definitions that can predispose us in a particular way and so it isn’t surprising when people are confused or frustrated by what it means and doesn’t mean to be labelled “gifted”. I was reminded of this the other day when a colleague sent me a link to the video Rethinking Giftedness. In it, Stanford students reflect on the impact the gifted label had on them, and their responses were primarily negative. The video makes a very compelling argument about the danger of labels for both students who are gifted and those who are not and it is easy to be drawn in to the argument that we should focus on a growth mindset as opposed to gifts which makes perfect sense…if you think giftedness is about achievement.

It is important to note that I do not doubt the veracity of the statements and observations shared by the students in the video, in fact I applaud their courage in sharing their insights. Their struggles are very real and I have seen them reflected in many of my  students. Part of what I try to do is help students understand what giftedness is and what it is not because many of the students who are referred to me are referred because they are struggling; the label simply gives us some insight into what might be the nature of that struggle. But if they or the people in their lives don’t understand the many “forms and shades” of giftedness, the label can create all kinds of problems. Does that mean we should stop identifying and supporting these children? If we don’t “identify” the giftedness they can often be “misdiagnosed” with other labels: behavior problem, superstar, rude,  immature, rocket scientist, arrogant, brainiac, annoying, intense, over-emotional, lazy… many of which I know can be just as problematic and fail to “see” what might really be going on. Having the label gives us another way of “seeing” them, if we understand what the label means in all of its complexity. But there is a point in the film that is well made- the label should not be the identifier. Children who are gifted are first and foremost human beings, just like everyone else, wonderfully unique in their own individual way, who may or may not be achievement oriented.

For other insights into misdiagnosis, please check out some of these fine posts here or click on the link below:

23915686_10213053133775585_4762174126040970227_n

Giftedness and the Impact of Trauma

If you’re a news hound, it’s been a summer of scary news stories from all parts of the globe. My iPhone has made it really easy to find these stories as they emerge…just one swipe to the right and there it is…a deadly accident, acts of terrorism, an environmental disaster and wait…”First shot, new target, led the assault…” No worries. Just a metaphor for a story on pipeline negotiations but it got my attention.

If I’m not careful I can start to have a view of the world that not only frightens me but raises my anxiety levels as I wonder about the future for my children and the children that I work with. Friends tell me that there is a simple solution. Stop swiping to the right. Turn off the news when it pops up on the radio. Scroll over the headlines on FaceBook. And then go into your garden, hang out with your friends, go fishing and you will see that the amazing world we live in is still there. You can stop the trauma.

But even if I can turn away from it, should I?  I live and work in a world that demands I be present for a variety of reasons. For example, we know that gifted students can be traumatized by world events. For some, their sensitivities and tendencies toward deep thought and active imaginations can lead to vicarious traumatization. We need to be sensitive to this and look for ways to support them. (SENGifted.org has some great resources including these Tips for Helping Gifted, Highly Sensitive Teens and Children Cope with Trauma. )

But even more troubling this past year has been the number of children who have come across my radar who are dealing with first hand trauma and exhibiting signs of giftedness. Here’s what makes it especially difficult. Often the trauma is not fully disclosed or acknowledged by the parent so there is no therapeutic intervention as well as behaviours that come with no “explanation.” Another confounding problem is that in the classroom, these flight or fight responses may be interpreted as a behaviour issue and be addressed in behaviour plans that do not incorporate support for trauma. And finally the testing of children who are in a state of hyper-arousal is unreliable and therefore they may not be identified and given access to gifted support which can add yet another level of frustration.

In this article by Dr. Bruce Perry, Violence and Childhood, he writes that it is important to help traumatized children understand their traumatic responses to triggers as they may not feel in control and as a result create an negative internal dialogue: stupid, sick, irrational, bad… He also notes that it is important to offer them hope, which includes an image of a better future and a better world as well as the first hand knowledge that not all adults are unpredictable, inattentive, abusive or violent. Interactions matter and responding with respect, humour and flexibility can start the process of feeling valued. But that isn’t always easy. There is truth to the saying that the children who are the most difficult to love are the ones who need it the most.

The world is full of trauma whether we experience it directly or vicariously. Turning away can be another act of violence…we need to be there for the traumatized who are in our lives as well as those who need us to be aware of what is happening elsewhere in the world so we can make political, social and economic choices responsibly. There is a virtue that can help us with this and it is called detachment. It allows us to experience our feelings without allowing them to control us as well as let go of the things we cannot change. At the same time it gives us the wisdom and grace to be in the world and choose how we will act as opposed to react. You can learn more about the virtues here.

For more blogs about gifted social issues follow this link or click on the icon below.

13879215_10208710258486417_2791415865854519067_n

Who Is Gifted: The Mysteries Surrounding Identification

How do I know it is springtime? I am in the middle of the gifted screening process where we look for the students who will benefit from being included in gifted programming as they enter into the fourth grade. As a team, we meet and review  the information that has been gathered and from that make our determinations. Our information package includes report cards, checklists and relevant work submitted by teachers. Parents have also completed checklists and included their observations. At the top of the pile are the off-level cognitive testing results. All that is left is to sift through the information gathered, then based on the needs identified and the resources available, make our recommendations. At first blush it feels overwhelming, and with good reason.

“It is inevitable that different values and priorities influence the ways we conceptualize giftedness and define the mission of gifted education.” David Yun Dai and Fei Chen in Three Paradigms of Gifted Education: In Search of Conceptual Clarity in Research and Practice, Gifted Child Quarterly, Summer 2013

It is no secret that within the gifted community there is a lack of agreement on what it means to be gifted. From a cognitive psychology perspective there are gifted individuals with FSIQ scores ranging from superior to profound alongside  prodigies who may only be gifted in a specific domain. The talent driven perspective contends that giftedness not necessarily identified by a test, but should include “other talents” that when paired with motivation and/or the ability to be “school smart” demonstrate excellence and achievement that may not indicative of a particular IQ score. There are our creatives, whose unique perspectives and uncanny ability to make connections take us by surprise, but who may not fit well in a typical classroom setting. But let us not forget our twice exceptional students who may have extraordinary strengths that may not be visible due to a learning disability, ADHD, ASD or physical impairment and whose strengths may be additionally masked by their ability to compensate for weaknesses or invoke behaviors to hide their weaknesses. And for the most part we don’t even consider how giftedness might be defined (or not) in different cultures. It is no surprise that many might find the process behind who is determined to be gifted in different jurisdictions mysterious.

Despite the lack of agreement within the gifted community, each year individuals around the world get a new way of understanding what makes them unique: in some cases a code for their cumulative file- gifted. The responsibility our assessment team is given is tremendous but before we begin, we always go back to the research and review our understanding of giftedness in light of the programming we are able to offer and the needs of the students who have been referred to us. Each year we “tweak” the program to adjust for emerging needs that may not be currently met or research we have gathered to support how we look at the information being provided. There are some referrals that don’t get decided on until we gather more information, some that are very straight forward and still others that involve a lot of rich discussion. While a part of me wishes that I had a Hogwart’s Sorting Hat, I learn so much from these conversations that by the time we are done, I am feeling confident about our decisions and looking forward to having meaningful conversations with parents and colleagues.

So does this mean there is no real mystery? Absolutely not. We do the best we can with the tools and information that we are given but truth be told, tests and portfolios only tell us so much. We know that every year some students get missed for many reasons: not identified at all or identified for referral but poor results on assessments and it is this knowledge that keeps us vigilant…is there something we missed? Something we should do differently? And so we do our best to remain open to feedback from teachers and parents once the process is complete. But the fact that our tools and methods are imprecise is as much a blessing as a problem. Children should be mysterious. They should be unpredictable. They should be full of possibilities and potentials that we cannot even begin to imagine because the secret to the universe is that within each of us is something that could never have been anticipated that will emerge when the time is right. Being able to measure or predict something like that would not only be a bad thing, but would rob us of possibilities that we cannot even begin to imagine.

For more blogs on the mysteries of giftedness, click on the box below:

13310371_10208236570524514_6573467645894317856_n