The National Association for Gifted Children (NAGC)
periodically issues position papers having to do with gifted education. For a
list with links to current position papers you can click here. I would like to highlight a couple of the position papers, including what I
see as conflicts that can be confusing about the definition of giftedness and
the identification of students.
Defining giftedness
has been a controversial topic as long as I can remember. I believe that a lack
of consensus in the field has often impaired progress. Different school
districts adopt different definitions and different methods for identifying
children who might benefit from advanced services. Misunderstandings result and
parents and teachers become frustrated. This NAGC position paper feels more
inclusive to me than some other definitions. For instance, the paper defines
outstanding competence as “documented performance or achievement in top
10% or rarer)” instead of the 3% figure that used to be in vogue. The paper
also states that those competencies may take place in one or more domains.
Although it lists possible domains (e.g., mathematics, music, dance), it does
not limit the definition to only those domains listed.
The position paper recognizes the development of ability or
talent as a lifelong process. “As individuals mature through childhood to
adolescence ... achievement and high levels of motivation in the domain
become the primary characteristics of their giftedness.” In previous
definitions, the emphasis often was placed on “potential” rather than
accomplishment. We can see and recognize accomplishments. Potential is not as
clear. How does one really know a person has potential if he doesn’t
demonstrate it?
Educators need to adjust educational materials and methods
for students who demonstrate that they can do more difficult work. I think
that’s a premise that is difficult to argue.
Students who experience poverty, discrimination, cultural barriers,
physical or learning disabilities, or motivational or emotional problems may be
much more difficult to spot, so we need to lighten up a bit and consider more
deeply if, given the right opportunities, these kids might be able to raise
their levels of accomplishment.
I question whether this position paper should be rewritten
to more closely align with the position paper above. In Redefining
Giftedness for a New Century, I think the reader is being told that each
gifted student should be provided an educational experience that matches his or
her needs. In The Role of Assessments in the Identification of Gifted
Students, we are told that assessments should be used that align with a program’s
goals and objectives. So, should we be figuring out what modifications a
particular student needs or should we only be finding and serving
students who fit into a particular program that we have designed? In The
Role of Assessments in the Identification of Gifted Students, it sounds
like the latter is true.
This second position paper also gets into the discussion of
using alternative assessments (i.e., nonverbal ability tests) for students who
are under-represented in gifted programs. Nonverbal ability tests have the
potential to identify students who can solve unique problems. One cannot
automatically come to the conclusion that a student who does well on these
tests will be capable of handling the advanced language arts or math program
that a school has created. If these types of tests are used, the school must
carefully examine what types of programs need to be created that will be meaningful.
Under best practices for using assessments for gifted
identification, the position paper states: “the choice of assessment tools must
match the definition of giftedness that has been determined by the state,
district, or school.” Here we’re coming back to the muddled conception of
giftedness again. As a family moves across the country, parents may find that
their children were “gifted” in one state or city, but not in another. No
wonder there is such confusion.
So we need to figure out which comes first—the horse or
the cart. Should we be figuring out which students have very strong
abilities and then design programs around those abilities or should we be
designing programs to match our state, district, or school definition of
giftedness and then trying to find students who would be a good match for those
programs?
