Since NAGC’s Bold Step initiative hit the intertubes, many wicked smart people have started passionately debating the concept of gifted versus talent development. I’ve followed the points and counter-points, sometimes rather bemusedly, sometimes rather irriated.
Deborah Ruf’s recent blog post on Why Do So Many Gifted Kids Think They Don’t Like Math? captures the ideological difference that lies within this argument. Ruf asserts that boredom, under-instruction, and poor instruction in elementary and middle school are to blame for why wicked smart kids think they don’t like math.
I agree completely that quality of instruction and grouping practices affect student motivation and achievement. What I take exception to within the blog – and with the whole talent development philosophy – is the lack of acknowledgment in the role of the individual child in what should be nurtured.
Why should every wicked smart kid like math in the first place?
Why can’t wicked smart kids have a preference in what they learn?
Every child, wicked smart or otherwise, should be given the respect to choose their path in life. As parents and educators, we have a responsibility to provide each child with an appropriate education. We also need to provide them with opportunities to explore areas of learning that they might not have fully considered for themselves.
However, no adult, no matter how many initials they have after their name or how respected they may be in the field of education, has the right to expect or demand that every gifted child like any one subject.
It would be like saying every tall child should like to play basketball and be expected to play varsity level. Or, every child with long, slender fingers should like to play the piano and give recitals.
These types of arguments fail to begin with the essential premise that individual choice and personality plays a role in education and career planning.
Just because a person is good at a subject doesn’t mean that they automatically like the subject. You can be a straight-A, academically accelerated math student and simply find the work boring. For whatever reason numbers simply don’t engage your brain like other subjects.
If math does not inspire a wicked smart child, why do educators insist that the child must like it and do well in it?
Proponents of talent development also fail to recognize the asynchronicity of many wicked smart kids. Wicked smart kids who excel in the humanities tend to get the short-end of the stick in gifted education.
These children are often well-read and self-educated on advanced topics in history, philosophy, and human nature. But, when it comes to math, they’re quite average. No, they are not math underachievers. They simply do not perform at outstanding levels. And, more often that not, they just don’t like math.
If a wicked smart kid simply achieves in the average range in math, does that really call for remediation efforts? As long as they meet minimum standards for their chronological age, why not allow them to soar in their areas of strength?
I do agree with Ruf’s basic argument for implementing best teaching practices in the classroom. Her four recommendations, including hiring qualified teachers and better utilizing ability grouping, should be implemented in schools across the county.
However, Ruf’s recommendations do not constitute a gifted program or even a model for gifted education. They are simply universal best practices that benefit all children, regardless of ability.
What’s missing in this current push for talent development is an acknowledgment of the essence of the gifted child.
Not all wicked smart kids will achieve eminence. Learning disabilities, low self-esteem, and the need to make friends are just a few of the reasons why some gifted kids will fail to reach their full potential in life. Lack of financial resources, parental support, teacher support or general opportunities will also hold some wicked smart kids back.
Yes, we can force the issue of achievement on our wicked smart kids. In the end, we will produce a segment of obedient citizens who function like robots for the pleasure and recognition of others.
But, we will also fail to produce innovative thinkers, with the self-confidence to follow their inner voice and passion. We will fail to give wicked smart children the skills they need to live a balanced life that allows them to fully develop as a whole person, not just as a brain.
As long as educators fail to attend to the social-emotional needs of the whole gifted child, we perform an intellectual castration that removes self-determination and the joie de vivre that comes with thinking, creating, and living a full and happy life.
