Smart Girls in the 21st Century

“There are smart girls in every classroom whose capacity and desire to learn are overlooked and go unnoticed simply because they don’t fit their society’s image – and their particular school’s definition of giftedness.”

Parents of gifted children – and in this instance, gifted girls - bear the responsibility of parenting more intensely in very absolute terms by their own admission. Enter Smart Girls in the 21^st Century Understanding Talented Girls and Women. Of the many of books I’ve read in the past several years on giftedness and parenting gifted children, this book by Barbara Kerr and Robyn McKay ranks in the top 10 of books I would recommend to parents.

Kerr and McKay bring a fresh perspective to decades-old debates regarding the definition of giftedness, academic achievement, talent development and a myriad of other divisive topics that weaken the foundation of the gifted community and jeopardize gifted advocacy as a whole within society.

Dr. Barbara Kerr

Smart Girls includes an historical review of what being smart means for women in our society, how things have changed in the 21^stcentury, and the way forward. The book is well-researched and easy to read which is invaluable to parents in need of good information, but little time to find it. 

Dr. Robyn McKay

Just as the authors did not agree with other researchers and academics in the field, I did not always agree with their conclusions. This does not, however, diminish my view of their work. On the contrary, I appreciate their contribution to the field and the knowledge I gained from them.

It is a book that admittedly focuses on talent development. The authors state, “We have left out a few popular ideas about definitions of giftedness that include sensitivities, intensities, or overexcitabilities because these ideas have not yet been linked by research to academic achievement, high performance at work, or life satisfaction, which are the predictions in which we are interested. Sometimes a focus on oversensitivity or extreme intensity can cause us to pathologize giftedness, to make it seem as if strong, even maladaptive, reactions are a sign of giftedness rather than a sign of a very frustrated, bored or troubled child.” (21, 22)

Many books written today about being gifted or educating gifted children allude to the works of Terman or Hollingsworth and Smart Girls is no exception; but with a very different point of view. “Leta Hollingsworth became the first great advocate of gifted girls. While Terman in his works seemed to accept that eminence was simply too difficult for gifted women to achieve, given their household roles, Hollingsworth showed both by her writings and her life that extraordinary accomplishment was, and should be, possible for gifted girls.” (29)

Insights provided by Smart Girls’ authors Kerr and McKay make this book a must-have for parents. Success coupled with happiness is a much sought after formula and one that can be found here. Let me conclude with a favorite passage from the book in which we are told that recent studies show:

“Women often failed to fulfill their potential, not because of lesser abilities, but because of environmental factors, including less rigorous educations, less prestigious colleges, the absence of mentors, and the difficulties of combining family and career.” (22) 

It is time to address these issues and provide our smart girls with the strategies to succeed in the 21^st century. 

Photo credits: Personal photos; .

Read more

Why I Believe in Gifted Education in Public Schools

• It is a basic tenet of education that EVERY child has the right to experience growth ultimately leading to the attainment of their own full potential.
• Removing gifted education from the public realm promotes elitism … only the wealthy can afford private schools, tutors, enrichment.
• Failure to support and nurture our high flyers, our creative types, our innovators and yes, our dreamers … ultimately slows the progress of human development.
• All segments of society are educated in public schools – thus providing a reservoir of potential to be identified as gifted.
• Dismantling gifted education programs in public schools spurs the creation of alternative forms of education which drain the entire system of financial resources meant for the education of all children.
• Failure to understand the nature of giftedness and how a lack of challenge may cause the loss of individual potential will be reflected in a nation’s loss in research and development, economic viability, and competitiveness on the global stage.
• Public education offers the best opportunity (when available) of peer interaction for identified gifted children.
• Public schools overall are made better and stronger IF and WHEN they choose to provide gifted students an appropriate learning environment.
• And because … history will one day look back and question the shortsightedness of those who chose to ignore the needs of the gifted student.

Think about the choices you've made or had to make as the parent of a gifted child. I am guessing that many of you, in retrospect, would have made different choices had they been available to you or within reach. Advocating for strong gifted programs in our public schools for the sake of all children just makes good sense. 

Read more

A Disturbance in the Force

"I felt a great disturbance in the Force ... "

~ Obi-Wan

It has been an extraordinary week in the gifted community … a national convention in the U.S., a new major book on giftedness released and a major name-change for a national organization in the U.K. Where to begin?

If you live in the U.S. and are involved in the gifted community, you are well aware that the National Association for Gifted Children (NAGC) met in Denver, Colorado for its 59^th Annual Convention, ‘Reaching Beyond the Summit’.

In the most recent edition of Compass Points (the NAGC’s weekly electronic newsletter), Executive Director, Nancy Green, commented that their “total registration is higher than we've seen in six years” for the convention. It is interesting to note that this year it was billed as a Joint Annual Professional Conference in conjunction with the National Consortium of Specialized Secondary Schools in Math, Science and Technology. (NCSSSMST – aka, the record holder for the longest name of an organization … ever!) There was also a Parent Conference held concurrently for one day.

In contrast to what this blog was told after last year’s conference by a source within the NAGC (“I assure you that NAGC is not suddenly changing course or taking off in another direction.”), it appears that the transition to ‘talent development’ is now the de facto position of this organization.

For the past year, I have watched this transformation as Paula Olszewski-Kubilius and others proselytized their new way forward by appearing at gifted conferences worldwide and in print. Before the ‘sure to follow’ comments are made, I am not taking a position; but merely making an observation. I have included links at the end of this post to back up my statement.*

On the other side of the aisle – the imminent (not to be confused with eminent) publication of a new book ~ Off the Charts ~ was also announced this week (a brief selection may be found ). Edited by Christine S. Neville, Michael M. Piechowski and Stephanie Tolan, the book has an amazing line-up of contributing authors including the late Annemarie Roeper (who sadly passed away this year), Linda Kreger Silverman, Patricia Gatto-Walden and Ellen Fiedler (a full list can be found ).

According to Stephanie Tolan on her blog, ,

“Last year at the national conference of the National Association for Gifted

Children (just a few months more than 20 years after that first Columbus Group

meeting) the suggestion was made in the presidential address that the field of

gifted education should unify its disparate viewpoints by adopting Talent

Development, with its clear attention to the issue of extraordinary achievement,

as the single driver of both this field’s educational programming and its research.  

So it was that members of the Columbus Group, that has continued to meet 

throughout these two decades, decided it was an important time to put out a

book to remind the field of the critical “other side” (the inside) of giftedness,

which is part of the gifted individual’s experience whether in or out of school,

whether achieving in the eyes of the world at any given moment or not!”

It will be interesting to watch as this scenario is played out. Will the field of gifted education finally become unified or has a schism grown so wide that both sides will decide to part ways? Perhaps someone should ask the kids what they think. How presumptuous of us as adults to define this population at all.

In the U.K., yet another announcement was made by a major gifted education group this week; the .

"Welcome to Potential Plus UK. Welcome to the website of the National

Association for Gifted Children. We are an independent charity which works

with the whole family to support the child who is gifted and talented. We

hope this website helps you with the support you need.

At our AGM on 27th October 2012, members unanimously voted to change

our name to Potential Plus UK. Over the next two months, you will see our

website starting to change in time for our relaunch on 4th Feb 2013."

The author of this comment seemed to be intimating that the term ‘gifted’ had caused the group to lose support in recent years. The term ‘potential’ was more culturally palatable.

And there you have it; an extraordinary week ~ may the Force be with you!

*Aforementioned references:

Paula Olszewski-Kubilius, speaker at , William & Mary College, March 2012. 

Edited by Rena F. Subotnik, Ann Robinson, Carolyn M. Callahan, and E. Jean Gubbins. April 2012 

 Response to Borland: , The Creativity Post, 7/4/2012. 

Rena Subotnik, at the 13^th Biennial ECHA Conference, September 2012

(This blog was adapted from the Psychological Science and the Public Interest article “Rethinking Giftedness and Gifted Education”), Guest blog by Frank C. Worrell, Paula Olszewski-Kubilius and Rena F. Subotnik, Scientific American, 11/2/2012. 

“Talent Development: A Framework for Our Work With Gifted Children”, The Signature Series, 59^thAnnual NAGC Convention, November 15 – 18, 2012. Moderator: Paula Olszewski-Kubilius.

Read more

Gagné’s Promise … Potential and Achievement

Recently, I was privileged to hear Dr. Françoys Gagné give a presentation on his Differentiated Model of Giftedness and Talent 2.0 (DMGT) in Second Life []. Although I had read many papers by Professor Gagné, nothing could replace listening to him explain it in person (virtually) and answer questions from the audience.

With all the recent discussion of talent development in the U.S., the timing of this presentation could not have been better. I was immediately struck by the different approach taken by Gagné and understood why those in other countries did not understand the resistance to talent development in the U.S. by many leading gifted education professionals.

Gifted children … our children … are more than a product to be exploited. They have feelings and needs beyond their academic abilities. As a parent, this is often seen as more important than raising the next Nobel Laureate … although a Nobel Prize in the family would be nice.

The DMGT addresses both giftedness and talent as a whole package. Fancy that! It’s always nice to see academics get it right. It is not an either/or proposition. Giftedness is the possession of natural abilities – a promise of achievement when coupled with effort. Will all children who are identified as gifted achieve? No. Is it the end of the world? No. Could a child’s achievement change the course of history? Sure. As parents, it is our role to learn about and understand giftedness so you can support and nurture your child. It is in the end, however, your child’s decision whether or not to make the effort.

Professor Gagné developed a chart [shown above] to show the process that transforms giftedness into talent via catalysts ~ environmental, intrapersonal and developmental. His model includes the top 10% of learners among age peers – he casts a wider net than many of his colleagues. This is reflected in his definition of giftedness, “Giftedness is the possession of outstanding aptitudes (natural/untrained abilities) in at least one ability domain, to a degree that places an individual among the top 10% of age peers.”

This model acknowledges the existence of ‘giftedness’ and ‘talent’ as aptitudes and competencies while defining three shared characteristics. As both are human abilities, they target those who are different from the norm, and that difference exists due to outstanding behaviors.

The DMGT covers many bases included in other models. It represents a child-friendly approach to understanding giftedness. The columns on the model are detailed and straight-forward. Gifted Education is a field of many different approaches and it is hoped that the reader will be helped to better understand them with information presented in this blog.

Being able to hear Gagné explain his model was priceless. If you would like to join me at the next Virtual Conference in Second Life, please take a moment to visit this  to find out how. Hope to see you there! 

Further Reading:

   

  

 

Read more

Giftedness or Talent Development?

For some, this post could well have been entitled, “Much Ado about Nothing”. For others, however, it is an issue of grave importance. This is a follow-up to my last two posts about redefining giftedness in the U.S.

A funny thing happened on my way to write this post … I learned that this discussion is nothing new – it was discussed in the 1800’s, 1930s, and virtually every decade thereafter. The difference today is that some researchers are now saying we must bid adieu to the term ‘gifted’ in favor of the more palatable term ‘talent development’ if the gifted community is to be found acceptable and worthy of public funding.

If you live outside of the U.S., you may have a puzzled look on your face about now. Talent development is an important initiative during the current Hungarian EU presidency’s term in office. April 9, 2011 was declared European Talent Day. Other countries, several of whom are among the top performers on the OECD’s PISA Assessments, are making talent development a national priority in lieu of the availability of natural resources.

Facebook discussions have revolved around two main concerns – talent development as a means of producing eminence within a specific domain and giftedness as a response to meeting the needs of the whole child including social and emotional issues.

This blog has advocated for talent development in the past. There is a great need in the world today for ‘producers’ ~ those who can answer the ‘big’ questions and find solutions to the many pressing issues in our world today. However, this needs to be done in concert with remembering the uniqueness of each child and their differential needs; separate and beyond the needs of other children. It is curious to me why some leaders in the gifted community feel the need to eliminate one approach in deference to the other.

Here’s the deal for parents of gifted children – you and your child need to decide what is most important to your child. There is no right or wrong answer. Many parents are extremely comfortable seeing their children as high-achievers; producers. Many gifted children thrive on maintaining a 4.0 average with top scores on every test they take. They have the potential to attend the top universities and attain success in whatever field they choose. Others are happy seeing their child excel in whatever area they choose regardless of which path they follow to get there. Some will experience difficulties and require additional support throughout their lives; others will not.

What nearly all parents want most for their children is that they find peace and happiness in life doing whatever it is they choose. Few will accept the judgment that their child’s giftedness is solely dependent upon whether or not they achieve eminence in any field. If this were the case, there would be little reason to support any gifted child beyond the most profoundly gifted. Should we choose to support only those who have the potential to achieve eminence in their fields? In my humble opinion … not so much.  

There are many organizations in the U.S. and around the world whose mission it is to support gifted children in various ways. Here are a few links to various groups. If interested, take a look!

WCGTC ( )

SENG - US ( )

NACG – UK ( )

GT Voice - UK( )

GHF - US ( )

NACE - UK( )

AAEGT – AUS ()

NZAGC ( )  

HKAGE – Hong Kong ()

IRADTE - EU ( )

Read more

A Response from the NAGC

In my last post, I discussed the ongoing debate within the U.S.concerning statements made by Dr. Paula Olszewski-Kubilius both prior to and after becoming the president of the NAGC. Since that time, the NAGC and Dr. Olszewski-Kubilius have both responded with written statements  and  .

It was noted in one of the responses that statements were being conflated on certain gifted blogs. To make sure my readers are clear, I delineated three separate writings: 1) a monograph co-authored by Paula Olszewski-Kubilius and first published in January of 2011, 2) an article in Compass Points – “Taking a Bold Step”, also by Paula Olszewski-Kubilius sent to members in November 2011, and 3) an article in the Spring 2011 issue of Gifted Child Quarterly (not addressed in the responses).

The NAGC, in their response, also mentioned their position paper, Redefining Giftedness for a New Century: Shifting the Paradigm found , as the official position of the organization which this blog did not address. Readers will have to discern what they will from the statements by the NAGC. I will take them at face value at the present time that remarks made by Paula Olszewski-Kubiliusreflect her own personal opinions and not the official current position of the NAGC.

I would like to point out that I have great respect for the work Dr. Olszewski-Kubilius has done at Northwestern University and her dedication to their Center for Talent Development (take a look ). I applaud her courage for starting the conversation about talent development. I have spent the last couple weeks researching her writings and have learned much about her philosophy. Although I don't agree with all the conclusions to which she has come, there can be no doubt about her sincerity in helping children develop to their full potential. 

In my next post, I will discuss my interpretation of the differences of opinion between giftedness and talent development. For the record, I think both should play a role in the identification of and the delivery of services to gifted children rather than having one replace the other.  

Other blogs have also commented on this situation.:

The blog Gas Station Without Pumps has a good post on the Rethinking Giftedness monograph, entitled “What is Giftedness?” found  .

From Asynchronous Scholars’ Fund, “Shifting the Paradigm: Asynchrony and the High-Potential Child” found is another response to the NAGC.

From the blog Wicked Smart, there are three posts related to this discussion found , , and .

Read more

The NAGC’s Bold Step and What it Means for Your Gifted Child

What a way to start off a new job … with a bang! Paula Olszewski-Kubilius took over the reigns of the NAGC (National Association for Gifted Children – U.S.) at their annual convention earlier this month. She's also the director of Northwestern University’s Center for Talent Development and a professor in their School of Educationand Social Policy.

In her inaugural message to NAGC members, ‘’, Olszewski-Kubilius states, “I suggest that we take a bold step and consider making talent development, rather than giftedness, the major unifying concept of our field and most importantly, the basis for our practice.” Critics were quick to contend that this was a bold statement for the new president of an organization which is considered to be all about giftedness rather than talent development; even going so far as to suggest it change its  name.

Nothing less than a firestorm has erupted in online gifted communities. Perhaps it is just the company I keep, but the cons sure seemed to outnumber the pros. It also re-opened some old debates between the importance of recognizing giftedness vs. focusing on talent development … talent development based upon principles of psychology rather than education. Many negative comments seemed predicated on this conflict rather than on an in-depth review of the underlying reasons why the NAGC has committed to heading in this direction.

It just so happens that yours truly had been plodding her way through a 45+ page monograph for three weeks prior to the publishing of the latest issue of Compass Points. I say plodding because it reminded me of why I dropped out of graduate school (thus my lowly status of blogger rather than college professor). 

To be honest, the monograph, "", was not written for a lay person. The provided by the journal in which it was published, Psychological Science in the Public Interest, did not do it justice. In fact, in some social media circles it acted like high-quality kindling on a fire that was just getting started. The monograph was written, however, in my opinion to serve as the basis for a fundamental change in direction at the NAGC. It redefined giftedness as “the manifestation of performance or production”, that “achievement is the measure of giftedness”, and that “eminence is the basis on which this label [gifted] is granted”.

  

The controversy online made this topic almost too hot to handle for this blog. I say ‘almost’ because the more I read about it, the more intrigued I became about digging deeper. Talk about emotional intensity … it’s like an American attending the World Cup! You love the game – fútbol or soccer, as we like to call it – you know some of the players, you have a general idea of who you want to win, but most of the time you feel confused and wish those around you would just stop blowing those !

So why did the NAGC decide that now was the time to change course? From a review of this year’s Gifted Child Quarterly – the official journal of the NAGC … and yes, I am a member – it became clear that articles were published in anticipation of this move to an emphasis on talent development. It should also be noted that all three authors of the ‘Rethinking Giftedness’ monograph – Rena F. Subotnik, Paula Olszewdki-Kubilius, and Frank Worrell – are also members of the Editorial Review Board at Gifted Child Quarterly. (More on the authors can be found .)

In the Spring 2011 issue of Gifted Child Quarterly one such article appeared entitled, “”. The authors – Dai, Swanson & Cheng – came to the conclusion after an extensive review of gifted research articles between 1998 and 2010 that there needed to be a clearer definition of giftedness that the entire gifted community could agree upon if any forward progress was to be made in gifted education; at least in the U.S. They showed a dramatic increase in the amount of research on giftedness and gifted education, but also an increasing divergence in the direction of that research. Basically, they were calling for new standards in the field.

What were the motives behind this move on the part of the NAGC? Is it their intention to replace the term gifted with talent development? Are the social emotional issues experienced by gifted children no longer valid? What role does the NAGC’s support of The Talent Act sitting in Congress have to do with any of this? And last, but not least, for whom does the NAGC speak? I look forward to hearing from the NAGC should they decide to address these questions.

In the final analysis, this blogger must ask, “What does this mean for gifted children?” Yes, remember them – the children – the reason we teach, research, and for whom we advocate for a clearer understanding of their needs and education? This change of definition will definitely make a difference for future generations, but in reality … probably not for our children today. Which begs the question – should parents even be concerned about this whole issue?

Do I think it’s important for parents to be concerned about the direction taken by an organization who is a major player in shaping gifted education policy in the U.S.? Why, yes, yes.I.do! Just as I feel that progress will only be made when parents step up to the plate and make their voices heard in support of their children. For too long – like forever – parents have sat on the sidelines complaining about the gifted programs in their local schools, the lack of funding at the state level, and the lack of federal mandates to validate the need for gifted education at all. You need to become part of the conversation or things will NEVER change. You will become grandparents complaining from your rocking chairs and wishing you had done something years ago.

A word to my international readers … this is not solely an American issue. All parents need to become advocates for gifted education to ensure a brighter future filled with opportunity for your children. Better still … we must all come together as a forceful reminder to the larger gifted community that it is about … the children!

Read more