Creativity in Schools

Although I haven't spent enough time in today's classrooms to be an expert on the subject, I can say with great confidence that the public schools I've witnessed lack the opportunity for creative development and exploration. I recently had the opportunity to briefly visit The Arts Based School in Winston Salem, NC (an arts-based charter school) and had the distinct pleasure of watching students engage in artistic expression that was informed by their curriculum. There was a stark difference between this environment and my experience at Fairview Elementary (a High Point, NC public school), where I spent over 30 hours observing and working with a fourth grade class. As a result of the high-stakes testing culture, these students were handed a thick packet of math problems and spent their time working through the packets until test day. While I can see the benefits and drawbacks that come with both environments, it is my opinion that a happy medium—an environment in which students can develop creative thoughts and ideas and learn information that they are tested on—is most productive and valuable.

Ken Robinson, in his highly amusing TED Talk, suggests that our schools operate on a hierarchical system. Math and English are at the top and we know that this is true because they are considered the "Common Core Standards." This distinction, while rather small, shows our students that these are the subjects that we, as a society, value the most as they are the "core" of our education system. Science, history, technology, the arts and everything else our students learn about are considered "Essential Standards." While they are not altogether forgotten, they are clearly next in importance and the arts inevitably fall at the bottom of the list (Robinson, 2006).

This hierarchical structure shows our students that what they are good at may not be sustainable as a career or it may be a waste of time that could be used to master something more valuable. The ironic thing, coincidentally, is that creativity has become a quality that CEOs and executives look for in potential employees (Franklyn, n.d.). Innovation and the ability to think outside the box gives companies an edge on their competition. Our schools, however, seldom give students the time to develop these things because there's just "not enough time" to get it all done. This mentality is what, in essence, "kills" creativity. With that said, I don't believe that it is our schools that are at fault. I don't think they do enough to fix the problem, either.

In my opinion, creativity can't be taught. If a teacher attempts to teach creativity, students are not learning how to make new things or think of new ideas—they are learning from someone else. This is why creativity is something that must be developed independently. But while a teacher may not be able to teach a group of children how to be creative, students may be given the tools to develop and give rise to their creative abilities. Teachers can provide students with the ideal environment, including a creative atmosphere and opportunities to strengthen their creative thinking techniques, that can train a student to approach their work and life with creativity in mind. Creativity is in an entirely different realm than multiplication facts or grammar nuances, so it cannot be taught in the same way. Children who have the opportunity to develop their creative thinking skills, however, may be able to come up with unfamiliar ways to understand their multiplication facts or use an invented strategy to remember the difference between there, their, and they're.

In order to train students to become more creative, teachers need to first improve student's understanding of creativity. It is a quality that requires intrinsic, authentic motivation (Sternburg, 2006). This comes from allowing students to engage in projects that tap into their interests and connect to their everyday lives. By providing students with this opportunity, they are more likely to invest themselves in their studies and produce higher quality work.

Additionally, teachers must tend to the environment that their students are working in. Giving a student the opportunity to explore their interests in an unsupportive atmosphere will not yield the best results. Instead, teachers need to invest in developing their classroom into a creative space in which students are encouraged to ask questions and try new ideas. New ideas are risky for students—they may be met with negativity, failure, or ridicule which are all things that people tend to avoid. However, if a student's environment has fostered a healthy self-esteem and promises an encouraging response to their risk-taking, it may engender several new ideas that a student is willing to share with their peers.

Sternberg even mentions the environment as one of the most important aspects of igniting creativity in people. He states that a person could have all of the "internal resources" necessary for creativity, but without environmental support, that creativity may never be shown (Sternburg, 2006). Inevitably, there will be obstacles in every environment that impede the development of creativity. With this in mind, teachers must act as creativity fosterers and help students face these challenges while providing them with supportive validation.

Lastly, students and teachers alike need to learn how to assess their work in terms other than "passing" or "failing." There is much more work to a problem than the answer that a student chose on a standardized assessment. Teachers must provide students with opportunities to demonstrate their understanding in other ways that value the decisions they made throughout their problem-solving process. While they will not be assessed in this way every time they take a test, at least students understand that their work and creative thinking skills can be evaluated in more than one way.

Although I do not believe creativity can be taught and I do not believe that our schools are "killing creativity," I do think that our teachers and schools can do much more for our students in terms of helping them to develop their own creativity. By providing students with tools and encouraging their unique ideas, we teach them that what they are good at is valuable to our society. Rather than focus on subjects that are at the top of the hierarchy, we must do more to integrate all subjects and show our students that innovation is a commodity that we value.

References

Robinson, K. (2006). How Schools Kill Creativity. TED 2006 conference. Retrieved from http://www.ted.com/talks/ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_creativity#t-925986

Sternburg. R. J. (2006). ‘The Nature of Creativity’. Creativity Reasearch Journal. 18: 87-98

Franklyn. (n.d.). Creativity [PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved from https://sites.google.com/site/hpuedu4420/Creativity.ppt?attredirects=0 

Diversity Grid

As an individual who hails from a culturally diverse background, I can identify with the way students from foreign places feel around the majority population. Sometimes, the way I was raised does not match up with the way my friends were raised. We celebrate different holidays, have different values, and speak different languages.

In a classroom, it is important to celebrate these differences. It is the teacher's job to create an inclusive environment for all students—no matter their ability level, background, or primary language.

Often times, students that have transferred or come from other countries—especially during the middle of the year—feel isolated or misunderstood. In terms of their giftedness, the language barrier or stereotypical view of their culture could cause them to be overlooked and, therefore, underserved.

In considering diversity within the classroom, I created a Diversity Grid that profiles a student in my American Sign Language Class.

In my opinion, this girl is gifted. She is an extremely self-directed learner that picks up languages quickly. In addition to Mandarin, American Sign Language, and English, she is proficient in other languages. Although she is shy, she is confident in her abilities and is quick to understand.

Below you will find a diversity grid in which I provide information about her and accommodations I suggest in order to best meet her needs in the classroom. To preserve her anonymity, I have changed her name to Jane Doe.

In terms of her accommodations, I believe that Jane Doe can accomplish anything that an English-speaking gifted student can accomplish. However, I do think that it is important to give her an opportunity to learn in her native language. Because she feels more comfortable writing in Chinese characters, I think it is important to facilitate this.

Whatever the accommodation, culturally diverse gifted students' needs must be met in the same way that majority population needs are met. This means that the teacher must put more work into adapting methods to ensure that this is accomplished.

Which Curriculum Model?

With such a wide variety of curriculum models being used in gifted classrooms across the nations, it is difficult to determine a "favorite" or what works best in one classroom. Honestly, in the gifted classrooms that I've observed, I haven't seen one particular model in use. Sometimes, it's a combination of models. Other times, there's no indication of a "structured" gifted curriculum model at work at all.

In an effort to avoid gaps in gifted education and ensure that the services provided by a gifted education are sufficient, districts and school systems must choose and work with a curriculum model. We've discussed how important it is for there to be a model, no matter which one, in place. Without it, a gifted program lacks clear expectations and goals which ultimately help educators create lesson plans, ideas for projects, and strategies for differentiation. It also lacks organization and leaves teachers to scramble to figure out what has already been taught, what is expected to be taught, and how to teach it in the most efficient and effective way.

After blogging about the Student Enrichment Model (SEM) and creativity, I felt extremely partial to that model. I forced myself to do extra researching and reading up on the other models, because I wanted to be as informed as possible before making an ultimate decision. Even so, I would choose the Student Enrichment Model over any other model. This is simply because it can be easily integrated into any classroom, and works to engage students in hands-on activities based on their interests. It encourages students to master 21st century skills, all while delving into topics that spark creativity and foster a love for learning.

Although I've explained it before, the SEM is "a three tiered system of enrichment activities that gradually increase in rigor and demand independent exploration (Davis, Rim and Siegle, 2011). The three tiers encourage students to explore topics unfamiliar to them, develop the skills to complete an in-depth study on that topic, and execute a project that demonstrates the knowledge acquired as a result of their studies.

In addition to the use of this "Enrichment Triad," students are assessed individually to determine their abilities, interests, and style preferences (Davis, Rimm, and Siegle, 2011). This information is later used to establish curriculum modifications, which in turn creates more time for the enrichment activities. In essence, this is curriculum compacting—"a technique for differentiating instruction that allows teachers to make adjustments to curriculum for students who have already mastered the material to be learned, replacing content students know with new content, enrichment options, or other activities" (Curriculum Compacting, n.d.).

The identification process for the SEM is interesting, too. For the number of statistics I've read on exclusivity within gifted programs, the SEM does a adequate job of serving a large number of students because of the use of a talent pool and the Revolving Door Identification model (VanTassel-Baska, J., 1984). This model establishes that schools can participate in a year-round and ongoing search for students with gifted tendencies. This creates about a 10-15% increase in the gifted population of a school, simply because educators are identifying students throughout the year, rather than just at the beginning.

Overall, the SEM is an inclusive model that is named "schoolwide" for a reason. The activities that are performed by these students (especially the tier 1 and tier 2 activities) could be easily applied to a general education classroom without a problem. Between the talent pool and ongoing identification, this model makes the transition into a gifted program more seamless and natural. Because students are already participating in the exploratory activities that come with the Schoolwide Enrichment Model, students in general curriculum classrooms have experience exploring their own topics and interests. In the case that a child would be identified as a gifted student, that child has already practiced using the resources through the model and can begin working towards a more advanced, tier 3 project.

Ultimately, the SEM provides students with an enriched education, filled with opportunity for independent thought and creativity. It gives students an year-round opportunity to become identified as gifted, and works seamlessly with general curriculum classrooms. In my opinion, if students are not working towards something they're interested in and passionate about, they're not going to remember it or identify with it. However, the Schoolwide Enrichment Model provides students with this outlet, and with hands-on learning tailored to each student's needs.



References

Davis, G., Rimm, S., & Siegle, D. (2011). Education of the Gifted and Talented (Sixth ed., p. 47). Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.

Curriculum Compacting. (n.d.). Retrieved November 11, 2015, from https://www.nagc.org/resources-publications/gifted-education-practices/curriculum-compacting 

VanTassel-Baska, J. (1984). The talent search as an identification model. Retrieved November 11, 2015, from http://www.davidsongifted.org/db/Articles_id_10087.aspx 

Discrimination and Its Influence on the Gifted Program

One group in particular that encounters discrimination both in and out of the classroom is the Hispanic population. As a person who identifies as Cuban-American, I straddle the cultural boundary that makes me one nationality or the other. Over the course of my life, I've had the privilege of viewing situations from both sides, understanding how cultural perspectives can change everything about an issue. I've also been able to experience the negativity associated with being from a different background; the fear and prejudice people have when they encounter the unfamiliar. 

This is no different, however, in the field of education. After reading about the growing number of Latinos in the United States, it isn't surprising that they come with their own stereotypes (Garret, Antrop-Gonzalez, Velez, pp. 106-115). As Latinos surpass African Americans in population and high school drop-outs, is increasingly important that we learn who they are, where these people come from, and what needs must be met so that they can succeed—especially those of them that are gifted.

Discrimination & Prejudice 

At the root of every social issue is a stereotype that feeds it. For Hispanics, this stereotype revolves around immigration and the way in which hispanics gain their citizenship. As a result of a broken immigration system, Hispanics are named as lazy, free-loaders, and gang bangers (Brownface! - The History of Racist Latino/Hispanic Stereotypes, n.d.). Unfortunately, this stereotype is perpetuated in the media, by presidential candidates, and people who lump every Hispanic person into a homogenous group. As a descendent of immigrants, I can attest to the inaccuracies of these stereotypes. 

Hispanic students not only deal with these issues of prejudice, but they could also be struggling with a language barrier. As a result, these students are considered "different" and feel isolated from the classroom and forgotten by the school system. 

It is an entirely different issue when giftedness is thrown into the mix. Students with language gaps or poor language skills could be overlooked when identifying potential gifted students. And while giftedness is something to be celebrated, Hispanic students may even hide their intelligence simply because it doesn't fit the mold of what a Hispanic "should" be. 

  

Cultural Bias 

Where we, as teachers, fault our Special Diverse Populations students, is when we make assumptions about a child's potential based on their cultural background. 

Unfortunately, the testing methods used to identify gifted learners are multiple choice tests, or heavily reliant on a mastery of the English language. For Hispanic students, this proves difficult, especially when they have to overcome a language barrier. Rather than properly identifying these students, many may assume that Latino students are behind, academically speaking. 

In addition, test questions may prove difficult because the questions are also biased (Reece, 2013). If Latino students do not have the background knowledge white students have, it may prove impossible to answer a particular question correctly and score in a range that would be considered "gifted." However, this doesn't make a Latino child any less gifted. 

Is There a Solution?

As educators of all students from all backgrounds and cultures, it is essential that we recognize and celebrate the differences our students have. As gifted teachers, these cultural differences should be at the forefront of our minds, especially because we know that the number of diverse gifted students is slowly growing. 

These gifted students may be the first in their family, may not have any friends that are gifted, and may feel isolated or ashamed of their talents. It is our job to create opportunities for these students to express themselves to build confidence and a sense of comfort at school. 

It is also our job to come up with alternative ways for these students to express their talents. For example, if Hispanic students struggle to write or read in English, we can allow them to draw pictures or demonstrate their understanding. 

Although working with Special Diverse Populations can be challenging, it is a teacher's responsibility to overcome the stereotypes, bias, and self-doubt these children come with. We must develop relationships with them to better understand where they come from, their beliefs, and their needs as gifted learners. By developing these relationships, free of bias, we may be able to break down some barriers culturally diverse students feel at school and in the gifted program. 

References 

Garret, T., Antrop-Gonzalez, R., & Velez, W. (2010). Examining the Success Factors of High-Achieving Puerto Rican Male High-School Students. Nurturing and Impeding Influences on High Ability, (32), 106-115. doi:10.1080/02783191003587892 

Brownface! - The History of Racist Latino/Hispanic Stereotypes. (n.d.). Retrieved October 28, 2015. 

 Reese, R. (2013, February 21). Minority Testing Bias Persists. Retrieved October 28, 2015. 

Differentiation in the Classroom

I know I've sat through classroom observations, watching a teacher do the same thing with each and every student. This "cookie-cutter" classroom is indicative of a teacher who doesn't understand the needs of her children. Within any group, whether a gifted classroom or not, students have different levels of achievement. Some students are high achieving and work at a faster pace than others, some students are low achieving and can't seem to keep up with the work, and some students fall right in the middle.

The problem with classrooms today is that teachers have become accustomed to "teaching to the middle." Unfortunately, when teachers do this, they fail to challenge their high achieving students, and they fail to properly scaffold their low achieving students. Because the vast majority of students in a classroom will be average students and this is the group teachers are targeting, test scores will "look" good and the teacher feels as though she has done her job. 

Sadly, this is a picture of many classrooms that I've witnessed thus far. 

Characteristics 

Differentiation, however, is a solution to this problem and makes it possible for a teacher to reach the individual learners that exist in a classroom. By definition, differentiation is when a teacher is "reacting responsively to a learner's needs" (Tomlinson & Allan, 2000). When a teacher chooses to differentiate instruction, the teacher is also choosing to recognize and understand the differences that each student has. It forces a teacher to validate the individual needs of each student and make adjustments to meet their needs. 

According to Tomlinson, teachers can differentiate by "content, process, and product" (Tomlinson & Allan, 2000). This makes for several opportunities throughout a lesson to switch things up to meet the needs, interests, and learning profiles of each student. 

To differentiate content in a classroom, a teacher would mostly focus on changing how the student gains access to the material. While the facts, vocabulary words, and skills would be the same for every student in a classroom, how students gain access to this learning will shift the level of difficult within a lesson. Tomlinson and Allan suggest that teachers use some of these ways to differentiate the access to content within a lesson: 

• Using manipulatives; 
• Using texts or novels at more than one reading level; 
• Using texts, computer programs, tape recorders, and videos as a way of conveying key concepts to varied learners (Tomlinson & Allan, 2000). 

To differentiate the process by which students learn to make sense of the content, teachers can provide a lot of choice in the activities by which students come to understand the material. By varying the levels of difficulties, giving students choices about how they present or express what they've learned, and tailor activities to student interests, teachers can potentially meet the needs of every student they have. 

To differentiate what students do to demonstrate what they've learned, teachers can use several methods to give opportunities for students to express themselves and become more involved in the process. Tomlinson and Allan suggest that teachers provide several options that match student readiness, allow for students to work together, and use a wide variety of assessment tools to ensure success on all levels (Tomlinson & Allan, 2000).  

The end goal of a differentiated classroom is to maximize the amount of growth and success each student achieves. While many teachers focus on bringing their students up to "grade level," differentiation moves away from the generalized benchmarked goals and ensures each student is growing based on their personal and individual starting point (Tomlinson & Allan, 2000). 

Not every student will have the same starting point every year, or in every subject. To this end, teachers will create opportunities for students to master the content based on each student's understanding of it. Students who understand a lesson before it is taught might not need to do work that is repetitive and irrelevant to them; instead, they might try working on an independent study or delve into an aspect of the lesson they found interesting. Students who have no background knowledge on a lesson might need more assistance, meaning that their activities may be more "surface-level" before they can move on to more challenging ideas. 

Apart from those I've already discussed, there are few other characteristics of differentiated classrooms that make this method work. Generally speaking, differentiated classrooms are: 

• Flexible
• Based on the regular assessment of students needs 
• Focused on teacher/student collaboration (Characteristics of a Differentiated Classroom, n.d.)

All of these characteristics look great on paper, but what happens when teachers try to implement differentiated instruction into their classroom? It isn't as easy as one might think.

Challenges 

A differentiated classroom is hard work. It comes with a wide range of challenges that teachers must overcome to ensure the success of their students. 

The first and most important challenge to overcome is that teachers must come to understand what is going on in their students' heads (Benefits and challenges of differentiating instruction in 21st century classrooms, n.d.). We must ask ourselves if we know our students—if we understand the state of our students' current knowledge—and how do we measure this? 

Next, students must begin to adjust to being in charge of their own learning and success within the classroom. In a differentiated classroom, this responsibility is placed on students early on. It is important that these students understand their role in the process and get used to how things work. 

Many students, myself included, found it odd when the focus in a classroom was on the individual and their success. I could never understand why the teacher was giving me so much time to do something on my own. As we know, this kind of independent work is great for student achievement, fostering creativity, and deepening our understanding of previously mastered content. However, I think that students fail to understand that the teacher is the facilitator of learning. To teach, the teacher does not need to stand at the front of the room and lecture. Instead, the teacher must provide plenty of opportunities for students to interact with the material. 

In a gifted classroom especially, students may have free time to work independently on a project or assignment—and that's OK. As a society, we need to move away from the image of a teacher lecturing at the front of a classroom and instead look at a classroom where students work independently while the teacher conferences with each of them, monitors, and facilitates growth.  

Another of the many excuses teachers use as a reason that differentiated instruction will not fit their classroom is that there is not enough time for it. Rather than think of differentiated instruction as something "extra" to do, teachers must start thinking of it as the only way to do things.

Experience 

Although I haven't had much experience working in classrooms, from what I've seen teachers do not make differentiation a priority. Apart from one classroom in particular, each teacher I have observed has not had different ways for students to access, understand, and present their knowledge on a topic.

This is disheartening, especially because I could quickly identify the differences in students across the room and understood that there was a demand for it. 

However, over Fall Break I had the opportunity to observe two gifted 4th grade classes. These teachers worked hard to ensure that every student was working towards an individual goal and had multiple options for learning. One student in particular was of interest when he began coding in math class. For a fourth grader, this was impressive, but it was part of a independent study that he set up with his teacher, who quenched his thirst for a better understanding of computer science. 

Without differentiation, this student would not have been as successful in school He already understood the topics that were being covered, didn't need to participate in irrelevant activities, but used code to solidify what he already knew about the subject. 

Ultimately, teachers need to start thinking about their students as individuals, not a group of students that need to meet a certain benchmark goal. By looking at individual needs, we do more for our students by attempting to meet them where they're at rather than assume what they don't know.

References 

Tomlinson, C., & Allan, S. (2000). Understanding Differentiated Instruction: Building a Foundation for Leadership. In Leadership for Differentiating Schools & Classrooms (Ch. 1). 

Characteristics of a Differentiated Classroom. (n.d.). Retrieved from: http://pdsupport.cmswiki.wikispaces.net/Characteristics+of+a+DIfferentiated+Classroom. October 27, 2015. 

Benefits and challenges of Differentiating instruction in 21st century classrooms. (n.d.). Retrieved from: https://designing21centurylearning.wikispaces.com/Benefits+and+challenges+of+Differentiating+instruction+in+21st+century+classrooms. October 27, 2015. 

SEM and Creativity?

Renzulli's Schoolwide Enrichment Model (SEM) is a great way to encourage a development of creativity—something that, in my opinion, is vital to the learning process. Without an emphasis on creativity, students learn to accept that there is a right or wrong answer to every question. There is no "grey area" or "wiggle room" for them to take risks and push themselves to deeply understand a subject. As teachers, more specifically teachers of gifted students, we need to ensure that this spark of creativity isn't lost to the inherent need for perfection or the boredom that some students experience. That is where the Schoolwide Enrichment Model comes in.

This model is considered "schoolwide" because it is intended to serve all students and requires teachers to take advantage of the resources that are around them. SEM was designed to be used in conjunction with the Enrichment Triad Model, a three tiered system of enrichment activities that gradually increase in rigor and demand independent exploration (Davis, Rim and Siegle, 2011, pg. 176).

The first tier, Type I Enrichment activities, are general exploratory experiences. These are in place so that students have an opportunity to explore and expose themselves to topics that are unfamiliar to them and not covered in the general curriculum. (Davis, Rimm, and Siegle, 2011, pg. 176). In an effort to stimulate new interests, the teacher would give students the opportunity to interact with the topic through "demonstrations, guest speakers, performances, DVDs, Internet sites, and slide presentations" (Davis, Rimm, and Siegle, 2011, pg. 176). 

The second tier, Type II Enrichment activities, take the exploratory work that has already been completed and encourage students to develop the skills the will need to complete a Type III Enrichment activity. These are essentially "group training activities" that provide students with the tools to work both academically and socially (Davis, Rimm, and Siegle, 2011, pg. 176). Renzulli recommends that Type II activities specifically develop these skills: 

1. Cognitive Training 
• Creativity skills 
• Creative problem-solving and decision-making skills
• Critical and logical thinking skills 
2. Affective Training 
• Intrapersonal skills 
• Interpersonal skills 
• Dealing with critical life incidents
3. Learning-How-to-Learn Training 
• Listening, observing, and perceiving skills 
• Note-taking and outlining skills 
• Interviewing and surveying skills 
• Data analyzing and organizing skills 
4. Using Advanced Research Skills and Reference Materials 
• Preparing for Type III investigations 
• Library skills 
• Using community resources 
5. Developing Written, Oral, and Visual Communication Skills 
• Written communication skills 
• Oral communication skills 
• Visual communication skills (Renzulli, 1994). 

Although many of these activities can be found in Gifted Programs, this one specifically emphasizes the importance of developing creativity skills, teaching students to think, problem-solve, and make decisions creatively. 

These skills are developed in order to ensure success on the third tier, Type III Enrichment activities. These are activities selected by the student, based on their interests. The element of choice is important here, giving students an opportunity to choose something that motivates them to learn and produce a creatively executed project. This motivation is essential to developing creativity, as it is essential for students to enjoy a topic in order for them to feel any sense of urgency about it (Sternberg, 2006). Once students are given the independence to explore something that they find interesting, it is inevitable for their creativity to show in their final product. 

The Type III projects are intended for students to accomplish four things: 

1. "Apply knowledge, motivation, and creativity to a self-selected problem or area of study; 
2. Aquire advanced understanding of the content and methodology in a particular area; 
3. Develop skills or self-directed learning (planning, organizing, using resources, managing time, making decisions, and evaluating one's performance); and 
4. Develop self-confidence, task commitment, and feelings of accomplishment" (Davis, Rimm, Siegle, 2011, pg. 178). 

Throughout the entire SEM process, students are encouraged to think independently and work towards an independent goal. The teacher's role during these activities is minimal, giving students the resources and opportunities to explore on their own, make decisions independently, and create something new—one of the highest level of thinking on Bloom's Taxonomy. 

Ultimately, the SEM is a model that gives students the tools to initiate their own exploration of a range of topics, areas of interest, and fields of study. By training students to apply the knowledge they've gained to real-life problems, students begin to understand the application of what they're learning and what it could mean for them after school ends (Reis & Renzulli, 1994). By giving students a way to express themselves and their interests, creativity is bound to develop and students are inevitably going to learn that a test cannot measure their creative nature. 

References

Davis, G., Rimm, S., & Siegle, D. (1985). Education of the Gifted and Talented (Sixth ed., p. 47). Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.

Renzulli, J. and Reis, S. (1994). Research related to the Schoolwide Enrichment Triad Model. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38(1), 7 – 20. Accessed from http://www.gifted.uconn.edu/sem/semtriad.html

Renzulli, J. (2013). The Achievement Gap and the Education Consiracy Against Low Income Children. International Journal for Talent Development and Creativity. June. Accessed fromhttp://www.gifted.uconn.edu/sem/pdf/Conspiracy_Paper.pdf

Sternberg, R.J. (2006). “The Nature of Creativity”. Creativity Research Journal, 18:1, 87-98

Equity and Excellence in Middle School

I've had little to no experience with middle schoolers, so I'm completely unfamiliar with middle school education. Apart from my experience as a middle schooler myself, I was completely unaware of what goals and ideals guide middle grades programs.

After a little research, I found that before the 1960s, there wasn't anything that differentiated middle school in preparing young minds for higher learning. At the time of the start of the middle school movement, psychologists and educators realized that middle schoolers were not "simply older elementary students nor younger high school students" (Armstrong, 2006). Instead, they were in a class all their own, with different needs, goals, and inevitable developmental milestones. The emergence of puberty, coupled with the increased rigor created a perfect storm for these students, ultimately resulting in requiring a different approach to their education. Specific changes to the instruction, curriculum, and administration were recommended, all to contribute to the academic, social, and emotional maturation of these children (Armstrong, 2006).

In order to reach these developing students, a great middle school will establish opportunities for middle school students to find mentors among the faculty. They will also give students flexibility with regard to their academics and the opportunity to work between disciplines. Most of all, though, these schools attempt to create "small communities of learners" to focus on the unique needs of each student.

To me, this sounds a lot like the ideals of a gifted program. So what is it about these two fields colliding that causes discord?

The problem lies in heterogeneous grouping—a technique that middle schools use to address the developmental needs of their students (Willard-Holt, n.d.). Unfortunately, in this setting, the needs of gifted students are not addressed. By taking a cooperative learning approach, it's likely that gifted children will not feel challenged, will end up doing all of the work, or teaching the rest of their group. Although the needs of middle schoolers are unique, the needs of a gifted middle schooler require even more attention and support. Without challenging material, gifted students feel like they are wasting their time and could potentially become behavioral issues. In addition, by being grouped with students that are so unlike them, gifted students could lose or become detached from their gifted peers (Willard-Holt, n.d.).

Although Rosseli and Irvin refer to a type of flexible grouping, ultimately gifted students would spend the majority of their day in a heterogeneous setting, working with students that are likely well below their ability level (Rosseli & Irvin, 2001). For many gifted students, ability levels are well beyond their years. And in my experience specifically, students who are identified as gifted and are challenged in the right environment typically behave well beyond their years, too. If education has anything to do with age, I believe it is important to take this into consideration.

Gross examines this in her article when she says, "It is now generally understood and accepted that a child's level of social and emotional development is more highly correlated with his mental age than with his chronological age" (Gross, 1989). This quote resonated with me, specifically because I've had this feeling all my life; I've always felt a little too old for my peers. This made relating to them difficult and isolating and, in my opinion, caused more social and emotional distress than anything else. By forcing gifted students to be in heterogenous groups with students that are far below their mental age, schools are doing a disservice to the children who require more than the average amount of rigor and challenge to grow. Because these students' mental ages do not match their chronological ages, they technically should not be grouped with peers that do not match their educational, social, and emotional growth rates (Gross, 1989).

From my experience, I benefit from working with like-minded people. That's not to say that there isn't anything to gain from working in a heterogenous group, but homogenous groups challenge you to be better, instill a healthy competitive spirit, and cause less social stress on students that may not know their place, yet.

Another potential rift between the middle school philosophy and the gifted philosophy is that some middle school programs slightly shift their focus from critical, abstract thinking to social and emotional development. This means that schools allow teachers to move away from challenging students too much in order to preserve "self-concept" (Rosseli & Irvin, 2001).

In my opinion, this seems like an awful idea. Although middle school self-concepts are more delicate than those of other age groups, it is a school's priority to focus on the educational development of a student. By not challenging students, asking them involved questions, and encouraging them to think critically and abstractly, teachers put their students at a disadvantage. Despite their unique emotional needs, middle schoolers need to progress educationally in order to meet the challenges in high school. With regard to gifted students, this philosophy just does not work. Research has shown that gifted students not only benefit from, but also enjoy a challenge (Willard-Holt, n.d.). In fact, more often than not, their self-concept is based entirely on their academic achievements and abilities.

So what is equity in education? And excellence? In my opinion, equity in education means that every student is provided with a fair education without bias. Fair has multiple meanings, but for educational purposes I think that it means every child is provided with an educational environment that meets their unique and specific needs. Excellence also has to do with fairness and making an effort to make our instruction accessible but individualized. When schools do not recognize that their definition of excellence is too rigid, they assume that success and excellence among their student body is expecting the same results from every student, regardless of their ability level.

Instead, it is important for educators and administrators to understand the fluidity of excellence within an educational environment. Excellence for an average student is not the same as excellence for a gifted student. What's more, levels of excellence might even be measured differently when it comes to these students.

So fair doesn't necessarily have to mean equal, and I think that's entirely acceptable! Instead, I think that, in practice, fairness and excellence means teachers differentiate their instruction to meet the unique needs of every child in their class—even if they aren't gifted—and I think that the middle school philosophy encourages teachers to do this. Because middle schoolers have such unique needs, it is important to consider those needs individually. However, it is also important to take it a step further and recognize when the fundamental ideals of a philosophy are not working for your students. If gifted students are not challenged by their teacher, this is not an equitable or excellent environment. Instead, it is a detrimental situation that could negatively influence a child's educational, social, emotional and behavioral development.

Resources

Armstrong, T. (2006). Middle Schools: Social, Emotional, and Metacognitive Growth. In The Best Schools. Alexandria, Va.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Willard-Holt, C. (n.d.). Middle School Programs for Gifted Students. In PAGE Bulletin. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. Penn State University.

Rosseli, H. C. & Irvin. L. (2001). Differing perspectives common ground: The middle school and gifted educational relationship. The Middle School Journal 32(3). pp.
26-35.

Gross, M. (1989) The search for intimacy? The forced-choice dilemma of gifted youth. Roeper Review, 11(4). Roeper City and county School.