Society and Giftedness: Can’t They Just Get Along?!
Due to the
scattered nature of my many thoughts on the subject of social influence on
gifted education, and the complexities found in each factor, I have decided to
submit my written piece as a reflection rather than an academic paper. As a way
of taking the issues I engage with and bringing them into my life, I’ll be
posting this on my blog as well as submitting it in my portfolio. I have no
resolution to offer, I have very limited experience dealing with gifted
students, and even the experts in the field cannot answer some of the questions
regarding the way society treats the gifted. Within this format, I intend to
engage with several different aspects of gifted education, providing a brief
historical context for the relationship between society and gifted students and
eventually discussing the influence of current social and political values have
on our educational approaches. Additionally, throughout this piece I will
likely be asking questions that I have been unable to find answers to.
Sometimes, it is through such rhetorical or difficult questions that we gain a
better understanding of the complexity of an issue. I also hope not to bore
you, so I’ll try to keep this interesting.
In the beginning,
there was Sputnik. Well, not really, but this is a place many articles on
giftedness like to pause on and consider as they talk about the relationship
between society and gifted education. The space race of the 1950’s presented a
nationwide goal for American citizens. This motivation led to an increased
interest on educating gifted students in the areas of math and science,
propelling them on an obvious trajectory (get it?!?) towards the goal of
helping their nation win this race. The idea of a common goal and a real world
application for material being studied in class made gifted education in these
domains an extremely valuable focus. In many ways, this makes me think of
educational exploitation when I consider the situation in hindsight, since the
students were simply a means to a national goal, but I suppose the relationship
was symbiotic for those involved. In any case, modern researchers point back to
this point in time and claim that what we need is exactly what they had, a
cultural goal to put education back in the spotlight.
To me, this is
almost reminiscent of over-the-hill athletes who relive the glory days by forcing
their children on to the field. Sure, they may become successful and it may
work out, but it also perpetuates a cycle without addressing some greater
issues that may be involved such as the wishes of the child. Questions such as
the inherent value of education or the desires of individual students can be
overlooked if we search too hastily for the next educational fad to bring
relevance to the practice of gifted education.
In an article on the
relationship between society and gifted education, Cross and Cross claim that
“schools exist as institutions within our society, meaning that they reflect
the values of our society. A lack of agreement regarding the purpose of schools
indicates differences among the members of society who make these
determinations.” While this may be
detrimental, I feel as though it’s better to be in a state of uncertainty than
to hastily decide on a direction due to insecurity. What would it look like if
our schools selected and supported certain specific dominant ideologies
represented by our society?
Well, for one
thing, one shift that might be made is that they would be somehow monetized. If
there is one thing that can be said about Western society, it would have to be
that it is geared towards the consumer (ATMs in the classroom? Commercial
breaks?). If we were somehow able to keep financial influence out of the
classroom, one definite consideration we’d need to make is that the school
would be a more competitive place. Western society is predicated on
individualist notions that can be both helpful and harmful: we have individual
rights and freedoms and we look out for ourselves. The classroom that reflects
the majority of our society doesn’t concern itself with those who need
additional support or those who are being treated unjustly, it is self-serving.
Competition isn’t inherently a negative thing, but it should not be elevated
above other notions of interpersonal relations.
Along this
rationale, Cross and Cross go on in their article to discuss Social Dominance
Theory which essentially states that we become stable as a society by having
“dominant and subordinate groups whose members agree (consciously or not) that
the dominant group is deserving of its disproportionately large share of
positive social value.” In their view, we’re already seeing aspects of our
society manifesting in the classroom and in this sense, dominant groups are
being favored in all aspects of education (included giftedness identification).
By dominant group, they are referring to affluent Caucasian males. While this is
already an issue in our classrooms in a (hopefully) limited sense, if we permit
our educational practices to be driven not by informed research and experience
but rather by the dominant ideologies of society (such as the SDT), we open
ourselves up to condoning negligent, harmful instruction for all of our
students.
As we study and
inquire into the nature of learning and education, our understanding is
inevitably enriched. Running contrary to this process, we also have intuitive
notions we acquire from outside sources in society that occasionally impede our
ability to make rational decisions. What this looks like practically is
learning that, in cold enough temperatures, wet objects may become stuck to
other objects in class and then running out on to the playground and being
dared to lick the frozen pole. Sometimes the loud chants of peers and their
encouragement to “trust them” can feel more influential than what some teacher
told you in a classroom. This is analogous to the state of many public
impressions regarding the benefits of gifted education. The difference is,
unlike in the scenario with the pole, nobody in this circumstance is aware
their tongue has become stuck at all.
In Jolly’s article
on gifted education, she makes three prominent “despite” statements that
showcase the way society has historically neglected the teacher in the
classroom in favor of the friends on the playground:
“Despite strong
empirical evidence for the need to challenge gifted children in the regular
classroom or through special classes or schools, a general consensus existed
about the woeful state of gifted education at the end of World War II.”
“Despite the
theoretical shifts and recommendations for a more sensitive means of
identification, IQ scores and standardized achievement measures were still
widely used in conjunction with a narrow definition of giftedness to identify
students for gifted and talented programs…”
“Despite research findings from Terman and
Hollingworth that supported acceleration for gifted students, many school
personnel clung to the antiquated idea that acceleration options negatively
impacted children in terms of social development, which would certainly
outweigh any academic advantages.”
These statements exist among a
myriad of others related to issues about giftedness and gifted education. We,
as a society, have had our tongues stuck to the pole for so long we’re
beginning to like the taste of metal. It is this very same society that, I hope
we can agree (as we discussed above), does not necessarily result in the best
judgment in terms of educational practices and paradigms for our students.
There is, I
believe, a simple explanation for why we see so many mistaken assumptions about
education and educational practices: anyone can teach. We are not brain
surgeons wielding tools of potentially deathly consequences nor professional
athletes performing feats of unimaginable physical exertion; we are educators
hoping that some of the wisdom and knowledge we’ve gained can be passed on to
our students. Anyone can teach. When it comes to an activity anyone can do,
you’ll always have people telling you you’re doing it wrong. However, simply
because someone CAN do something, it doesn’t mean that they can either do it
well or that they should do it.
Case in point, my
wife is an amazing cook. She occasionally has the patient to permit me to
assist her in the kitchen (though not often). She assigns me simple tasks which
I, in turn, decide upon a different way of completing to get the desired
results. The other day, I attempted my variation of the pan toss that I’d seen
her, and so many other television chefs, perform with ease. I, however, had
figured out my way to do it that (I thought) would be a good idea. It took me
about an hour to clean the oven element of egg debris that found its way out of
the pan and all over the range top. Sure, I CAN cook and I probably CAN execute
a pan flip, but this doesn’t mean that I should assume my way is better than
those who have spent time practicing such things.
What do those who
have spent their time researching gifted education say? Well, they agree pretty
emphatically that it is a profession that is heavily influenced by misinformed
presumptions that serve to undermine the goal of education for all students.
Jolly goes on in her article to state that “…gifted and talented students
become a national priority when excellence is sought and a critical need is
perceived. However, as equity becomes the predilection, gifted students’ needs
are seen as an elitist luxury and are replaced with the priorities of students
within other subpopulations.” Essentially, she’s reminding us not to forget the
same students we praised and supported back when we needed to get to space
simply because we’ve stopped paying attention to that venture. Two problems
with turning education into a fad is that nobody feels nostalgia for the needs
of students, and you don’t see too many kids playing with their pet rocks
anymore. We need to have a model of education that is sustained and supported
by both those directly involved in it (teachers, principals, students, parents)
and the rest of society, and this model needs to be inclusive of all learning
styles.
With regard to the
latter portion of Jolly’s quote, we must also consider a very sensitive area in
gifted education. Gifted students, in some districts, receive their funding
from the same pool that students with other educational needs do. If you were
to consider the needs of your students, and have resources to split between a
group of gifted learners and a group of students with learning disabilities,
how would you divide it? 50/50? 60/40? 70/30? Equity, as Jolly refers to it, is
often meant to mean that each person does not get an equal amount but rather
they receive what they need. This paradigm is observed both in the opinion of
the general public as well as most educational practitioners. The question
should be, in my opinion, how do we support the needs of all learners rather than
how do we support those who need it most. We should not view education as a
process wherein any one group is excluded or sacrificed to benefit another;
this is an example of a negative outcome from the competitive societal value I
spoke about earlier. Instead, we need to be advocating for the needs of all
students in our classroom, even those who are gifted.
Many researches
have claimed, as Jolly, Cross & Cross have, that we are without a societal
goal or direction. The generation of utopian ideals could potentially be a
response to such criticisms. As such, a final element of gifted education that
I wish to address today is heavily influenced by Ambrose’s article on
giftedness and utopias. It is not only the way society interacts with
giftedness that we must consider, but also the way gifted individuals relate to
society. One aspect shared by many gifted students is an intense sense of and
desire for justice. This, to me, is an ironic element as many gifted students
aren’t always cared for and educated in the most just manner. In any case,
because justice is such an intense focus for many of these students, a topic
such as designing a utopia is an alluring endeavor.
Additionally,
Ambrose argues that “Gifted people are especially important in considerations
of utopianism, because they have the greatest ability to create utopian
perspectives that will capture the imaginations of millions. They also are more
likely to develop the critical thought capacities needed for cutting through
flawed utopian frameworks…” The abilities of gifted students make them ideal
candidates for seeing the problems we face in our societies and coming up with
real solutions. Ironically, this could lead to gifted students solving many of
the issues around society’s reception of future gifted students. However,
Ambrose’s article deals with issues larger than education. While utopias of
societies past may have focused on nurturing gifted students, or having them
give focus on critical thinking and the influence society has on them, a modern
utopia seems to represent harmful outcomes both financially and politically for
the individual with little consideration paid to education. He advocates an
educational approach that makes gifted students aware of the in which they are
immersed before they set out to conceptualize an ideal world.
In my opinion,
issues surrounding gifted education are fascinating as they constitute much
larger questions about what we, as a society, value. Is it important for us to
raise up and nurture those with intellectual gifts? For what purpose? Should we
have a goal for gifted education that goes beyond our other educational goals?
If we were to nurture gifted students’ ability to conceptualize utopian
systems, would we even put these into practice? Have we shown ourselves, as a
society, to be well informed in the past? If we share the goals of enriching
the educational experience of gifted students, are we prepared to listen to
them or are they merely being used to further our society’s goals? It is these
sorts of questions that we must be prepared to wrestled with when we consider
our relationship with gifted education.
As a final
message, I think it is important to consider Ambrose’s suggestion that we not
send out gifted students (or any student for that matter) on a quest to change
the world but rather that we equip them with the tools to shift their own
perspective. I hope, after reading this post, you come to develop a perspective
on issues surrounding gifted education, and that you use that perspective to
influence others.
Thank you!
References
Ambrose, D. (2008). Utopian Visions:
Promise and Pitfalls in the Global Awareness of the
Gifted. Roeper
Review, 30(1), 52-60.
Cross, J.,
& Cross, T. L. (2005). Social Dominance, Moral Politics, and Gifted
Education.
Roeper Review, 28(1), 21.
Jolly, J. L. (2009). A Resuscitation of
Gifted Education. American Educational History Journal,
36(1), 37-52.
