Tracing the Relationship between Gifted Education and the Needs of a Country

May 3, 2012May 3, 2012R. M. Benjamin

Richelle Benjamin
Professor Jack Dougherty
EDUC 300
3 May 2012

Tracing the Relationship between Gifted Education and the Needs of a Country

INTRODUCTION

The gifted child in American education is the child who exhibits a high level of intelligence and creativity. Gifted education in the United States exists to foster the abilities of these exceptional students in order to cultivate the skills they posses. These gifted programs cater to the needs of gifted students, providing a challenging curriculum instead of holding the child back with a curriculum catering to average or below-average students. This recognition of the need to distinguish the education of gifted students from other students has existed since the turn of the twentieth century. However, the gifted education provided in today’s public schools is definitely not the same type of education provided then. An examination of the history of gifted education will show that the goals and methods of gifted programs have changed throughout the years. No doubt the goals, or the anticipated outcomes of gifted education programs, and the methods, or the ways in which gifted programs are being implemented, have changed since gifted education first started emerging within the United States. What this essay seeks to explore is how gifted education has progressed in the American school system… and why. How have the goals and methods of gifted education within the American public school system changed from the 1920s to the 1970s? What do these goals and methods say about the intended purpose of gifted education?

The answer to how and why the goals and methods of gifted education have shifted throughout its history relies on a broader history of the United States. The argument is that gifted education does not exist solely to benefit those children exhibiting exceptional qualities. Gifted education adapts to meet certain economic and political demands. It is not only about providing the gifted with an accelerated education, but about producing future Americans to rise to these economic and political challenges. The proof is in the academic literature—the books and articles produced for administrators and educators. These sources lay out how to educate a gifted child. They express concerns and share advice for how to go about providing the gifted child with a positive academic experience. Through these methods, the researcher gains a better picture of why gifted education does what it does. The goals and methods expressed in this literature speak to larger economic and political issues. The goals and methods of gifted education do, in fact, change to accommodate the overarching demands of the country, with the intended purpose of gifted education to produce citizens to meet these demands.

THE WORLD WARS AND SPUTNIK

One of the first demands on gifted and talented education came as a result of the two major World Wars. World War I and World War II brought the United States into the forefront of international turmoil and affairs. In addition, the “involvement of the United States as a force and defender of persons… forced our leaders to seek other leaders” (Imbeau). Seeing how important good leaders were during these two wars, current leaders knew that their children had to be well educated in order to secure the safety and global dominance of the United States. Politicians and educators, therefore, looked to gifted education to prepare the minds of students who had already shown the incredible capability of becoming these leaders. The goals of gifted education during this time were to develop intelligent and globally aware young citizens who would later grow up to use their skills for the betterment of human kind, both within the United States and in the international world, especially when conflicts arose.

Another major historical event changing the goals of gifted education, even more so than the two World Wars, occurred in the year 1957 when Russia launched Sputnik into outer space. This event “caused an uproar because political leaders of the U.S. realized that this country had been upstaged by a potential global adversary” and that “educators who had been berating an educational system that drastically failed to meet the instructional needs… of our brightest youth… were correct after all” (Haenesly). Russia had beaten the United States in a contest of intelligence, and politicians saw that the best way to combat this was to promote the education of America’s gifted. Therefore, the goals of gifted education during the late 50s and early 60s began to focus on producing students who were globally competitive. The country needed youth with the ability to win the intellectual battle against its adversaries. Especially, “the fields of math and science were seen as the means of making sure we had the talent to lead the world in our exploration of space” (Imbeau). As a result, a greater emphasis on the subjects that would produce future space engineers had begun. Gifted education revolved around the need to send America outside the atmosphere.

Evidence of Sputnik and the Cold War’s impact on the goals and methods of gifted education may be uncovered in a comparison of literature produced before and after the event. In the year prior, 1956, D.A. Worcester published a book entitled The Education of Children of Above-Average Mentality. As stated in the introduction, and according to the author, “Science, industry, business and government are desperately looking for individuals of high intelligence and sound training to occupy positions of leadership” (Worcester 3)—the same positions of leadership required during the time of the World Wars. Worcester’s book illustrates the goal of gifted education as creating good future leaders. The proposed methods, however, are still lacking. Worcester’s is a small tome, only 65 pages. The suggestions on how to accommodate for gifted children are few a vague. The author himself admits that “we have no good studies which reliably compare the merits of various methods of caring for the needs of the gifted” (49). However, some methods are still suggested. These include allowing gifted children to accelerate, either by enrolling in programs which allow them to make rapid progress or by skipping a grade, and become enriched through experiences “for which the average of below-average child lacks either the time, the interest or the ability to understand” (39). The source proves that, prior to the launch of Sputnik, the ideas about how to educate gifted students were still very much underdeveloped.

Guides for teachers published after Sputnik, however, show to be drastically different from earlier versions. A book by Joseph French—published in 1959, just two short years after Russia launched its satellite—gives a different goal for gifted education and provides significantly more suggestions on how this education can be carried out. In its introduction, Educating the Gifted makes several claims that indicate the direct influence Sputnik and the Cold War has had on the author’s work. First, French says, “The United States wastes much of its talent, primarily because many of its brightest youth do not secure the education that would enable them to work at levels for which they are potentially qualified” (French 2). The specific use of the words “United States” contrasts with Worcester’s book, who does not mention his county so explicitly. The use of the name indicates a certain amount of pride as well as duty to the country—sentiments which have no doubt grown out of a need to compete with another major world power. As he continues, French writes, “The United States Central Intelligence Agency has estimated that the Soviet Union is producing four trained technicians to our three” (3). If the first quote does not convey an awareness of America’s competition with Russia, the second definitely does. In this way, French declares that the goal of gifted education is to prepare America to be more globally competitive.

The methods French chooses to discuss are revealed through several selected readings. These methods, unlike those of Worcester, are explained at much greater detail. One, in an article by Walter B. Barbe and Dorothy Norris, describes a “major work program” in which “gifted children, grouped together in classes, are not pushed though subject matter at a more rapid rate, but are allowed to delve more deeply into material and find out more about the subject matter taught at the same grade level” (221). This method encourages enrichment—providing children with a richer experience than the average student has access to. The aims of this method is to develop “initiative and creative power”, “critical thinking”, and “leadership” (221), just to name a few. The program seeks to create independent and invested learners. This is what educators also hope will foster a sense of global competition. By allowing students to discover their own interest in a task, they can master it further. In the fields where math and science are concerned, this offers a direct threat to students in Russia.

Another program highlighted in an article by A. Harry Passow discusses the development of a science program for gifted students. This is a direct product of Sputnik and the Cold War. Passow stresses the importance of focusing on “ideas, concepts, and relationships” (253) within science and offering students with something more advanced than the memorization of scientific facts. This program, the article argues, can and should be implemented at the elementary school level. The author argues that “science need not be confined to nature study and watered-down experiments… rapid learners are capable of projects and independent study” (255). Passow stresses that laboratory work for elementary school children, not demonstrations, are what is needed for a successful science program. Clearly, the purpose of this method is to introduce advanced science to students at a young age, to spark their interest in the subject, and provide the necessary groundwork for allowing them to further delve into the subject.

THE CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT

Unlike the World Wars and Sputnik, where the purpose was to create leaders to protect and compete on an international scale, the Civil Rights Movement changed gifted education in a different way. Says Imbeau, the Civil Rights Movement “forces us to reconsider all groups in whom talent may be found” (Imbeau). The movement opened education to minorities in America, and as a result, the definition of the gifted student changed to accommodate those who were non-white. The goal of gifted education changed to offer better equality within the school system. It rose to meet growing demands for integration and better opportunity. The new purpose of gifted education was to challenge the old purpose—to redefine what gifted education was and how it could help students achieve.

Ogilvie’s book, Gifted Children in Primary Schools, was published in 1973—nine years after the passing of the Civil Rights Act in 1964. While it does not mention race specifically, Ogilvie’s work does offer alternative definitions of gifted students and gifted teaching, broadening the definitions to offer a wider range of methods for teaching gifted students. These are definitions which did not exist before. The book, unlike previous ones mentioned, pays special attention to two types of giftedness: general and specific. It also lays out instruction strategies for all subjects, even those for art and physical education. The book then takes the analysis a step further by discussing individualized education. Topics like “Styles of learning”, “Parental attitudes and home background”, and “Teacher personality” (Ogilvie 125) are also factored into the consideration of gifted learning. No doubt, this is the most comprehensive source of the three discussed thus far, proof that the Civil Rights Movement inspired a closer look at the child’s inclusion in a positive and opportunistic educational experience.

CONCLUSION

Gifted Education in the United States experienced a vast number of changes between the 1920s and 1970s. All these changes become apparent in the way writers chose to inform educators on how to properly implement gifted education within their own schools. The way in which methods for gifted education are written about becomes more specific, more comprehensive, and more inclusive as time progresses. This, however, is no coincidence. A look at major historical events and an alignment of these events with the biggest shifts in gifted education show that gifted education does not exist on its own. Instead, as the goals of gifted education shift to accommodate major economic and political events, such as the two World Wars, the Russian launch of Sputnik, and the Civil Rights Movement, the purpose of gifted education become clear. Gifted education does more than foster the exceptional talents of youth. It rises to meet the challenges that international and internal turmoil place on the country. It works to provide future leaders—both in the international and national realm.

Works Cited

French, Joseph L. Educating the Gifted, a Book of Readings. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1964. Print.

Haensly, Patricia A. “My View of the ‘top 10’ Events That Have Influenced the Field of Gifted Education During the Past Century.” Gifted Child Today Magazine 22.6 (1999): 33–37. Print.

Imbeau, Marcia B. “A Century of Gifted Education: a Reflection of Who and What Made a Difference.” Gifted Child Today Magazine 22.6 (1999): 40–43. Print.

Ogilvie, Eric. Gifted Children in Primary Schools. Macmillan Education, 1975. Print.

Worcester, Dean A. The Education of Children of Above-average Mentality. University of Nebraska, 1956. Print.

Presentation: Gifted Ed

May 1, 2012May 1, 2012R. M. Benjamin

Research Question

“How have the goals and methods of gifted education changed since the 1930s? What do these goals and methods say about the intended purpose of gifted education?”

Thesis

Gifted education is linked to the country at large, morphing to meet the demands that the country places on the student, in an effort to produce good future American citizens.

World Wars I and II

Goal:

· Politicians and educators look to gifted education to prepare the minds of students who had already shown the potential of becoming leaders capable of securing the safety and global dominance of the United States.

Methods:

· Emphasis on global issues and leadership skills

· Attention on human rights

Sputnik, 1957

Goal:

· Educate students to be globally competitive.

Methods:

· Emphasis on testing and an altered definition of gifted

· Increased learning in the fields of math and science

Curriculum Comparison

· 1956 vs. 1959

Richelle’s draft essay

April 21, 2012April 22, 2012R. M. Benjamin

Richelle Benjamin
Professor Jack Dougherty
EDUC 300
20 April 2012

“How have the goals and methods of gifted education changed since the 1950s? What do these goals and methods say about the intended purpose of gifted education?”

The gifted child in American education is the child who exhibits a high level of intelligence and creativity. Gifted education in the U.S. exists to foster the abilities of these exceptional students in order to cultivate the skills they posses. These gifted programs cater to the needs of gifted students, providing a challenging curriculum instead of holding the child back with a curriculum catering to average or below average students. This recognition of the need to distinguish the education of gifted students from other students has existed since the turn of the 20^th century. However, the gifted education provided in today’s public schools is definitely not the same type of education provided then. An examination of the history of gifted education will show that the methods and goals of gifted programs have changed throughout the years. Gifted education is linked to the country at large, morphing to meet the demands that the country places on the student, in an effort to produce good future American citizens.

Another major historical event changing the goals of gifted education occurred in the year 1957 when Russia launched Sputnik into outer space. This event “caused an uproar because political leaders of the U.S. realized that this country had been upstaged by a potential global adversary” and that “educators who had been berating an educational system that drastically failed to meet the instructional needs… of our brightest youth… were correct after all” (Haenesly). Russia had beaten the United States in a contest of intelligence, and politicians saw that the best way to combat this was to promote the education of America’s gifted. Therefore, the goals of gifted education during the late 50s and early 60s began to focus on producing students who were globally competitive. The country needed youth with the ability to win the intellectual battle against its adversaries. Especially, “the fields of math and science were seen as the means of making sure we had the talent to lead the world in our exploration of space” (Imbeau). As a result, a greater emphasis on the subjects that would produce future space engineers had begun. Gifted education revolved around the need to send America outside the atmosphere.

Works Cited

Haensly, Patricia A. “My View of the ‘top 10’ Events That Have Influenced the Field of Gifted Education During the Past Century.” Gifted Child Today Magazine 22.6 (1999): 33–37. Print.

Imbeau, Marcia B. “A Century of Gifted Education: a Reflection of Who and What Made a Difference.” Gifted Child Today Magazine 22.6 (1999): 40–43. Print.

Goals and Methods of Gifted Education

April 4, 2012April 4, 2012R. M. Benjamin

Richelle Benjamin
Professor Jack Dougherty
EDUC 300
4 April 2012

Research Proposal

“How have the goals and methods of gifted education changed since the 1950s? What do these goals and methods say about the intended purpose of gifted education?”

Gifted children are students recognized by the school system as pupils with exceptionally high levels of intelligence and creativity. Schools identify a need to provide these students with an alternative form of education, generally referred to as Gifted and Talented education. Gifted and Talented programs exist with the purpose of catering to the needs of gifted students. In general, they seek to provide gifted students with a challenging curriculum that will allow the student to continue to progress in his or her education, instead of being held back by a curriculum catering to average or below average students. Recognition of the need to distinguish the education of gifted students from other students has existed since the 1950s. What my research paper will do is examine how the opinions and approach to gifted education have varied during the past sixty years as it has been discussed in books and scholarly articles. More specifically, I will examine how the goals and methods for teaching gifted students have progressed through these years. I would like to look at several aspects of gifted education, including whether or not the students are incorporated into the regular classroom, what subjects teachers focus on, and what skills gifted education instructors focus on establishing within the student. I intend to see a shift in focus in each decade as gifted education changes to accommodate to the needs of a progressing society.

I began my research in two places: in the library’s main collection of books and using Trinity Online Resources. In the main collection, I found many books dealing with gifted students and gifted education—an entire section, in fact. I sorted through the books to select the ones I thought were most relevant. These included books specifically mentioning the “teaching of” gifted students or the “curriculum for” gifted education. These books would apply more to my research question, as they would provide more information on the methods of teaching gifted students. I made sure to grab books from different decades as well, to be sure that I was looking at goals and methods through a span of time starting in the 1950s. Online, I used TOR to research articles that would be relevant to my research. In creating my preliminary list of resources, I focused, once again, on articles that specifically focused on the teaching of gifted students versus the establishment of gifted programs or the controversy behind them.

I would like to continue my research with more analysis of primary sources. I would like to expand my list of sources to curriculums of different decades and firsthand accounts from teachers involved in educating gifted students.

List of Sources (With Selected Annotations)

Cropley, Arthur, and John McLeod. “Preparing Teachers of the Gifted.” International Review of Education / Internationale Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft / Revue Internationale de l’Education 32.2 (1986): 125–136. Print.

Cropley and McLeod’s work, written in 1986, outlines the importance of the teacher’s role in gifted education. In their article, the author’s recognize the specific needs of gifted students and how these needs can be addressed by instructors of gifted education. By examining these needs, the authors ultimately expose the goals of gifted education during that decade.

Fliegler, Louis A. Curriculum Planning for the Gifted. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1961. Print.

Fliegler’s book provides advice for creating a curriculum in every subject, be it history, science, math, or creative writing. For each subject, the author informs the educator of how to identify a gifted student in that particular subject, what gifted programs for that subject are currently in practice, and how an instructor can build an adequate program in that subject. The book also offers project ideas for each subject taught.

French, Joseph L. Educating the Gifted, a Book of Readings. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1964. Print.

Gallagher, James John. Teaching the Gifted Child. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1977. Print.

Gallagher, Selena, Susen R. Smith, and Peter Merrotsy. “Teachers’ Perceptions of the Socioemotional Development of Intellectually Gifted Primary Aged Students and Their Attitudes Towards Ability Grouping and Acceleration.” Gifted & Talented International 26.1/2 (2011): 11–24. Print.

Ogilvie, Eric. Gifted Children in Primary Schools. Macmillan Education, 1975. Print.

Plunkett, Margaret1, and Leonie2 Kronborg. “Learning to Be a Teacher of the Gifted: The Importance of Examining Opinions and Challenging Misconceptions.” Gifted & Talented International 26.1/2 (2011): 31–46. Print.

Rakow, Susan1. “Helping Gifted Learners SOAR.” Educational Leadership 69.5 (2012): 34–40. Print.

Rakow’s article, published in 2012, provides an overview of the necessary steps educators need to take in order to create a positive gifted educational experience for their students. These steps include pre-assessment and differentiation. The article emphasizes that gifted education should group students together, but not place them in a track. It also establishes the purpose of early gifted education as laying the foundation for the pursuit of AP classes once the student reaches high school.

Stanley, Julian C. The Gifted and the Creative: A Fifty-year Perspective. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ. Pr., 1977. Print.

Worcester, Dean A. The Education of Children of Above-average Mentality. University of Nebraska, 1956. Print.

Yamin, Taisir Subhi. “Gifted Education: Provisions, Case Studies, Models, and Challenges.” Gifted & Talented International 25.2 (2010): 7–10. Print.

Using Housing to Bridge the Achievement Gap

February 28, 2012February 28, 2012Shantel Hanniford and Richelle Benjamin

Visit www.cahs.org for more information on what the organization does for the state of Connecticut.

HARTFORD, CT— On Monday, February 27, 2012, the Connecticut Association for Human Services hosted a public forum entitled “Opportunity in Connecticut: The Impact of Race, Poverty and Education on Family Economic Success.” Panelists with different backgrounds in housing, human rights, and the education system came together in the Old Judiciary Room of the capitol building to discuss a disturbing trend in Connecticut education. The trend is this: there is a large gap in achievement between white and minority students. The panel, facilitated by Eastern Connecticut State University’s president, Dr. Elsa M. Nuñez, especially focused on the topic of the Connecticut housing industry and its impact on the educational opportunities presented to children and their families. The panelists included Erin Boggs (Deputy Director of the Connecticut Fair Housing Center), George Coleman (Deputy Commissioner of the Connecticut State Department of Education), Orlando Rodriquez (Senior Policy Fellow with the Connecticut Voices for Children), and Valerie Shultz-Wilson (President and CEO of the Urban League of Southern Connecticut).

Opportunity in Connecticut
The forum opened up with a small power point presentation by Connecticut Kids Count Director, Jude Carroll in which she highlighted the crucial issues concerning race, poverty, and education. In her presentation, Carroll introduced a map that presented the comprehensive opportunity for children across the state of Connecticut (see page 5 of her document). Opportunity mapping geographically divides the state of Connecticut into very-low, low, moderate, high, and very-high opportunity zones according to their economic activity, job availability, school quality, house affordability, and access to healthy food. This kind of mapping illustrates the areas within the state of Connecticut that are either suffering or providing the most stimulating environment. From the depiction, Jude Carroll extrapolated that neighborhoods with limited opportunities were highly populated areas. Historically, these were also neighborhoods subjected to redlining in the past. Another staggering reality concluded that “Eighty-one percent of Blacks and 79 percent of Hispanics live in such ‘low-opportunity’ Connecticut neighborhoods, compared to 26 percent Whites. Conversely, ‘very high opportunity’ and ‘high opportunity’ neighborhoods are disproportionately White.”¹ A histogram included in the power point demonstrated that the median household net worth for whites in the year 2008 was $195,771 while minorities lagged behind at $3,000. These numbers provided concrete evidence of the racial disparities that still exist in this nation. At the end of her presentation, Jude Carroll proposed solutions for improving Connecticut’s current economic despair. These solutions included creating tax incentives for cities to become net job creators and high opportunity areas, making sure jobs pay family-supporting wages, prioritizing racial and economic integration, creating an Education Rental Assistance Program, revamping the state’s school funding mechanism, increasing minimum wages, and increasing availability of need-based financial aid—a tall order for Connecticut state policy makers.

Choice in Terms of Housing
Choice in schooling has been a popular issue in the education debate for a long time. However, in most educational debates, not many education reformers mention family choice in deciding where they want to live. Today, Erin Boggs of the Connecticut Fair Housing Center was firm in her belief that children should not have the power to choose where they want to go to school, but also that families should have the right to decide where they want to live. In her five-minute presentation, Boggs pointed out that, due mostly to historical segregation, minorities continue to populate areas with low opportunity. These are areas with high crime rates, low job growth rates, and poor schools. She mentioned the link between poverty and schools—that the schools were struggling because the concentration of poverty was so high. Her suggestion? Create affordable subsidized housing in high opportunity areas, bringing children and families out of low opportunity areas and nearer to thriving schools.

Of course, affordable housing in high opportunity areas is not a perfect solution. George Coleman, Deputy Commissioner of the Connecticut State Department of Education, expressed concern during the panelist discussion that as the poor moved into these homes, the rich would move out. Boggs combated this concern by suggesting that school systems be financially rewarded for offering affordable housing in high opportunity areas. Others, like Valerie Shultz-Wilson, President and CEO of the Urban League of Southern Connecticut, wondered if minority families would feel comfortable moving out of their communities and into high-income areas. Boggs argued that the housing movement was all about choice, about creating opportunities for families to succeed, but not forcing them into high opportunity areas. She also gave an example of a housing movement in Baltimore, Maryland when, given the opportunity, poor families created no opposition to relocate to suburban areas.

One thing is for certain, the achievement gap in Connecticut is the largest in the country. While advocates for reform struggle to find the solution, the idea of using housing to bridge this gap appears to be a promising one.

¹Reece, J. Gambhir, S., Olinger, J. Martin, M., and Harris, M. (2009) People, Place and Opportunity: Mapping Communities of Opportunity in Connecticut. A Joint Project of the Connecticut Fair Housing Center and Kirwan institute for the Study.

Writers Shantel Hanniford (far right) and Richelle Benjamin (second from left) in front of the Old Judiciary Building

Plagiarism is Bad

February 17, 2012February 17, 2012R. M. Benjamin

Example 1: Plagiarize the original text by copying portions of it word-for-word.

An economist who studied the teacher evaluation systems in New York City and Houston found that the average “margin of error” of a New York City teacher was plus or minus 28 points. In other words, a teachers who has ranked at the 43rd percentile compared to his or her peers might actually be anywhere between the 15th percentile and the 71st percentile.

Example 2: Plagiarize the original text by paraphrasing its structure too closely, without copying it word-for-word.

Sean Corcoran was an economist at New York University who studied the teacher evaluation systems in New York City and Houston. He found the average margin of error for a New York City teacher in these evaluation systems was plus or minus 28 points.

Example 3: Plagiarize the original text by paraphrasing its structure too closely, and include a citation. Even though you cited it, paraphrasing too closely is still plagiarism.

Example 4: Properly paraphrase from the original text by restating the author’s ideas in different words and phrases, and include a citation to the original source.

Proving the imperfection of the teacher evaluation system, one economist found that the margin of error in the evaluation system for New York was plus or minus 28 points. This meant that, even if a teacher was ranked in the 43^rd percentile, he or she could actually be between the ranks of the 15^th and 71^st percentile (Ravitch 270).

Example 5: Properly paraphrase from the original text by restating the author’s ideas in different words and phrases, add a direct quote, and include a citation to the original source.

Because of the large margin of error in the teacher evaluation systems, and the fluctuation of scores, the author says, “it is difficult to trust any performance rating if the odds of getting the same rating next year are no better than a coin toss” (Ravitch 271). Clearly, the current system is not an accurate one.

Work Cited

Diane Ravitch, The Death and Life of the Great American School System.New York: Basic Books, 2011, pp. 270-71.