My sister in law lived in a mixed low-income/hi-income area and had 3 kids who qualified for the G&T. For her, the gifted program merely meant that her kids didn't have to listen to the F-word all day. When she had a fourth kid, one of average intelligence, who did not get accepted into that track, she picked up and moved across the country to a school district where the overall population did not include F-word spouting second graders. She doesn't believe in private school.
I appreciate the author’s perspective, but improving cognitive ability is not what G&T programs seek to do. If IQ testing is done, the goal is to nurture an already gifted intellect. Boredom and a lack of challenge in curriculum is the problem. The Wechsler Adult Scales and several of the child test instruments do not focus only on the relatively stable vocabulary factor that is high in an enriched environment. It is not useful to approach G&T programs in this way. Offer a great education to all regardless of economic advantage, but you cannot expect the gifted to sit through the same information learning style that the average child needs any more than you would expect a child with a full scale IQ of 75 to learn at an average pace.
The question isn't as settled as your comment implies. IQ can be changed by environmental factors, including schooling, as the Flynn Effect suggests (the general rise in IQ scores throughout most of the 20th century).
My original draft of this post, which was about twice as long, included a brief discussion of that. Here it is:
Cognitive psychologist Richard Nisbett has observed that the heritability of IQ is much lower among low-SES children than among their high-SES peers, probably because environmental factors vary more among low-SES families. That means, he argues, that schooling can do a lot to raise the IQ of children who live in poverty. But whether that happens depends on what kind of schooling they get.
I understand that people have strong feelings about IQ, etc., and I don't intend to get into a long debate over the question. But if you are anyone else is interested in the Nisbett article, here's the link:
This is one theory of IQ. It is a new theory. The research still supports the testing and theories of the past 80 years. You are noting something that is not “settled science” as fact. I have given and taken multiple IQ tests in my profession of Clinical Psychology. I differ with Nisbett on many grounds, not the least of which is that this theory, which is a part of Critical Theory, is based on a desire to see genetics as less than environment. I don’t have ‘strong feelings’. I use my reasoning ability. I use replicated and validated research.
Just to clarify one point: The researchers describe their results as showing no effect of the G&T program on "cognitive" measures, but that doesn't mean they were continuing to track children's IQ scores. Children took an IQ test to qualify for the program initially, but the measures used to determine later "cognitive" benefits were state reading and math tests and PSAT scores. So we don't really know whether there was any change in their IQ scores, based on this study.
The GT designation can be problematic, especially in the early years. However, to withhold special programs until middle or high school would be a grave mistake. I had passed out of all leveled reading material in my elementary school in the first grade. Was I supposed to suffer for the next 4 years? Russell Warne suggested we use the advanced learner label instead of gifted to provide accelerated learning to these kids. This makes sense, at least in the elementary years. However, a high cognitive function label or something similar needs to be used at some point to recognize the high cognitive ability of these students once they hit 12 or so. Accelerated class placement is the ideal solution. We need to create more separate schools for the education of advanced or gifted kids who tend to thrive not just academically but socially and emotionally as well in this environment.
I attended a small town elementary school in South Alabama. A fourth grade class photo showed some kids seated in front to be without shoes. I came from what would have been seen as privilege in that town. Still far from rich, though. I was already reading when I arrived at first grade, having been taught at home. This advantage was almost certainly not universally shared. For reference I'm a Mensa member so might have been plucked out if there had been anything like advanced placement. There wasn't. Kids were assigned to teachers at random.
Corporal punishment was occasionally meted out but generally didn't need to be. We were all pretty afraid of our teachers. The school was segregated as schools were in the Deep South well past Brown v Board of Ed.
I went back for a 50th high school reunion (for a high school I never attended - we moved halfway through my 6th grade year) because I knew so many of the kids. It was a small town. Insofar as I could tell, all those present were or had been successful in careers, the professions and showed all the markers of fulfilling lives. I think having scary (dominant, unwilling to tolerate dissent or misbehavior) teachers might be the determinant.
As a footnote, the high school was integrated (would have been about 1965-1969) and competitive sport was the catalyst. The graduating class would have been about 150 kids. If there was any overhanging prejudice I certainly didn't see it.
One thing I think is worth thinking about in this analysis is how correlated to income these G&T effects are compared to just baseline school.
This was sort of the big error universities made when dropping SAT/ACT requirements: scores were correlated to income, but much less so than every other part of the application, so it actually _advantaged_ low income students despite being positively correlated with income.
Basically every measure of academic assessment you do will skew toward privileged kids having better outcomes, but imo the useful variable to think about is how these skews relate to each other
"... the students who act out in class are often smart kids who are bored".
A high school (1958-1961) classmate of mine had a career in math education. She also did some private tutoring in math for gifted students who were not sufficiently challenged in their regular classes. She said that most of her students were boys, not because the boys were intrinsically better at math than the girls, but because they were more likely to "act out" their frustrations, and this motivated their teachers and parents to look for ways to help them.
I'll tell you exactly how. #1 embrace neurodiversity. #2. Understand that giftedness is highly heritable. #3. Understand that giftedness is a neurotype of it's own. #4. Embrace universal design for learning and reject the historical segregation of students. If we also embrace the work of Dr. Deborah Ruf we'd realize that lots of multiply Neurodivergent students who also are autistic, Dyslexic, dyscalculic, and overlap of several neurotypes within one individual should not disqualify them for enrichment within the high quality tier 1 curriculum. The goal should be to strengthen tier 1. Not to find more excuses to ignore the flaws of a weak tier 1 general education curriculum.
My sister in law lived in a mixed low-income/hi-income area and had 3 kids who qualified for the G&T. For her, the gifted program merely meant that her kids didn't have to listen to the F-word all day. When she had a fourth kid, one of average intelligence, who did not get accepted into that track, she picked up and moved across the country to a school district where the overall population did not include F-word spouting second graders. She doesn't believe in private school.
That would have probably meant the paddle in my grade school.
I appreciate the author’s perspective, but improving cognitive ability is not what G&T programs seek to do. If IQ testing is done, the goal is to nurture an already gifted intellect. Boredom and a lack of challenge in curriculum is the problem. The Wechsler Adult Scales and several of the child test instruments do not focus only on the relatively stable vocabulary factor that is high in an enriched environment. It is not useful to approach G&T programs in this way. Offer a great education to all regardless of economic advantage, but you cannot expect the gifted to sit through the same information learning style that the average child needs any more than you would expect a child with a full scale IQ of 75 to learn at an average pace.
The question isn't as settled as your comment implies. IQ can be changed by environmental factors, including schooling, as the Flynn Effect suggests (the general rise in IQ scores throughout most of the 20th century).
My original draft of this post, which was about twice as long, included a brief discussion of that. Here it is:
Cognitive psychologist Richard Nisbett has observed that the heritability of IQ is much lower among low-SES children than among their high-SES peers, probably because environmental factors vary more among low-SES families. That means, he argues, that schooling can do a lot to raise the IQ of children who live in poverty. But whether that happens depends on what kind of schooling they get.
I understand that people have strong feelings about IQ, etc., and I don't intend to get into a long debate over the question. But if you are anyone else is interested in the Nisbett article, here's the link:
https://www.aft.org/sites/default/files/media/2014/Nisbett.pdf
This is one theory of IQ. It is a new theory. The research still supports the testing and theories of the past 80 years. You are noting something that is not “settled science” as fact. I have given and taken multiple IQ tests in my profession of Clinical Psychology. I differ with Nisbett on many grounds, not the least of which is that this theory, which is a part of Critical Theory, is based on a desire to see genetics as less than environment. I don’t have ‘strong feelings’. I use my reasoning ability. I use replicated and validated research.
Just to clarify one point: The researchers describe their results as showing no effect of the G&T program on "cognitive" measures, but that doesn't mean they were continuing to track children's IQ scores. Children took an IQ test to qualify for the program initially, but the measures used to determine later "cognitive" benefits were state reading and math tests and PSAT scores. So we don't really know whether there was any change in their IQ scores, based on this study.
Sums it up! Thank you.
The GT designation can be problematic, especially in the early years. However, to withhold special programs until middle or high school would be a grave mistake. I had passed out of all leveled reading material in my elementary school in the first grade. Was I supposed to suffer for the next 4 years? Russell Warne suggested we use the advanced learner label instead of gifted to provide accelerated learning to these kids. This makes sense, at least in the elementary years. However, a high cognitive function label or something similar needs to be used at some point to recognize the high cognitive ability of these students once they hit 12 or so. Accelerated class placement is the ideal solution. We need to create more separate schools for the education of advanced or gifted kids who tend to thrive not just academically but socially and emotionally as well in this environment.
I attended a small town elementary school in South Alabama. A fourth grade class photo showed some kids seated in front to be without shoes. I came from what would have been seen as privilege in that town. Still far from rich, though. I was already reading when I arrived at first grade, having been taught at home. This advantage was almost certainly not universally shared. For reference I'm a Mensa member so might have been plucked out if there had been anything like advanced placement. There wasn't. Kids were assigned to teachers at random.
Corporal punishment was occasionally meted out but generally didn't need to be. We were all pretty afraid of our teachers. The school was segregated as schools were in the Deep South well past Brown v Board of Ed.
I went back for a 50th high school reunion (for a high school I never attended - we moved halfway through my 6th grade year) because I knew so many of the kids. It was a small town. Insofar as I could tell, all those present were or had been successful in careers, the professions and showed all the markers of fulfilling lives. I think having scary (dominant, unwilling to tolerate dissent or misbehavior) teachers might be the determinant.
As a footnote, the high school was integrated (would have been about 1965-1969) and competitive sport was the catalyst. The graduating class would have been about 150 kids. If there was any overhanging prejudice I certainly didn't see it.
A thousand likes for your really interesting and inspiring first-hand story.
One thing I think is worth thinking about in this analysis is how correlated to income these G&T effects are compared to just baseline school.
This was sort of the big error universities made when dropping SAT/ACT requirements: scores were correlated to income, but much less so than every other part of the application, so it actually _advantaged_ low income students despite being positively correlated with income.
Basically every measure of academic assessment you do will skew toward privileged kids having better outcomes, but imo the useful variable to think about is how these skews relate to each other
"... the students who act out in class are often smart kids who are bored".
A high school (1958-1961) classmate of mine had a career in math education. She also did some private tutoring in math for gifted students who were not sufficiently challenged in their regular classes. She said that most of her students were boys, not because the boys were intrinsically better at math than the girls, but because they were more likely to "act out" their frustrations, and this motivated their teachers and parents to look for ways to help them.
I'll tell you exactly how. #1 embrace neurodiversity. #2. Understand that giftedness is highly heritable. #3. Understand that giftedness is a neurotype of it's own. #4. Embrace universal design for learning and reject the historical segregation of students. If we also embrace the work of Dr. Deborah Ruf we'd realize that lots of multiply Neurodivergent students who also are autistic, Dyslexic, dyscalculic, and overlap of several neurotypes within one individual should not disqualify them for enrichment within the high quality tier 1 curriculum. The goal should be to strengthen tier 1. Not to find more excuses to ignore the flaws of a weak tier 1 general education curriculum.