[Ohiogift] ungiftedness

[Eric C Calvert]

I agree that part of what gifted education services should do is help counteract social pressure against "overachievers." I worry about the potential unintended consequences of the view that promoting high achievement in the areas that match students'  strengths and interests should not be a primary goal of gifted programming. "Just let kids be kids," I think too often becomes a rationale for neglecting gifted kids who, like most people, want to be good at things they care about and that utilize their strengths, but are underachieving due to negative peer pressure, an undiagnosed or unaddressed learning disability, depression, substance abuse, family trouble, or an overdose of inadequately challenging curriculum. For most gifted students who are underachieving, I am highly skeptical of the idea that not focusing on achievement is more humane than saying "you're fine just the way you are," when we know that few students (or adults, really) want to stay just the way they are. They want to grow. (But, if there really are students who would be completely happy in life staying just the way they are at this moment in time, what can any educational program offer them that wouldn't screw this up?)

While I also agree that we should have a broader view of what "achievement" means that incorporates more than GPA or achievement test scores, I also don't think it's abusive to hide from kids to the fact that accomplishing meaningful goals (whether or not that goal is something that the larger culture values greatly) almost always requires a significant investment of effort and enduring some, and possibly many, setbacks along the way. Even the people like Steve Jobs and Einstein who people like to hold up as examples of geniuses who weren't "achievers" in the traditional school sense had to develop a capacity to bounce back and endure failure (often hard) on the way to achieving their goals. Jobs had a difficult family life. Einstein labored in obscurity for years, and then had to flee his home country and persist in his work while many of his family members and neighbors were being slaughtered in concentration camps or on the battlefield. Both had to create many unsuccessful iterations of their work before producing the products we remember them for and that they were proud of. The point, I think, of the NAGC paper is that it's important for gifted students to develop persistence and resilience, but that it's far better to develop this in controlled, safe spaces where we can provide a safety net and encouragement so that students don't have to be traumatized and learn "the hard way" as adults when the stakes are much higher and the consequences are much more significant. (Think of like vaccination against an infectious disease. A small exposure to a weakened pathogen or close cousin of the target pathogen develops immunity. You might not like getting the shot, but it's a much better way to develop immunity than catching and having to suffer through the actual disease.)

Saying setting high expectations for highly able students is abusive is a little like saying teaching a kid to ride a bike is inherently abusive. In both cases, we know the child will experience struggle. We know the child will probably even get hurt a little along the way. But, in the bike scenario, we can limit the pain and prevent serious injury by starting the kid out in a flat cul-de-sac or unused parking lot instead of a busy street on a steep hill, equipping the child with a bike that fits and a good helmet, and providing encouragement and supervision to scoop the child up when he or she inevitably falls down. Even though no decent person wants to see a kid get the scratches and bruises that always come with learning to ride a bike, we still encourage them to try despite the risks instead of denying them the opportunity to learn or letting them quit the first time they crash because we know that crashing is an avoidable prerequisite to not crashing, and that when the kid does master riding the bike, it will be an exhilarating experience, and that the sense of accomplishment and the sheer pleasure of racing down a long hill will more than compensate for all the struggle. But, who is kinder and less abusive? The parent who is realistic about learning to ride a bike involves and helps the child try anyway, or the parent who says, "No. Bikes are dangerous. You'll get hurt. Just play indoors."

Developing resilience and metaskills through challenging students in gifted programs is not a conflicting goal with developing socially and emotionally healthy gifted students. (And In fact, it might actually be essential to developing socially and emotionally healthy gifted adults.)

From: "Edward A. Hawks III" <eah3rd at windstream.net<mailto:eah3rd at windstream.net>>
Date: Monday, June 24, 2013 9:54 AM
To: 'Katie Thurston' <kthurston61 at gmail.com<mailto:kthurston61 at gmail.com>>
Cc: Ohiogift Listserv <ohiogift at lists.service.ohio-state.edu<mailto:ohiogift at lists.service.ohio-state.edu>>
Subject: Re: [Ohiogift] ungiftedness


Thanks, Katie! I also agree with Mary’s summation of success and how it is perceived by societal differences. There is no clear-cut global definition that applies to everyone. I do believe that outcome of how one obtains personal success should be reflective of how it was achieved and, hopefully, within the confines of human decency and compassion. Of course, with gifted children, success can take on many faces depending on the individual. Children are going to have a different view than adults. We have wisdom and experience. For some gifted children, underachievement is a means of ‘fitting in’ with how he perceives his society (peers), especially if high-achievement is not the norm for the group with whom he associates, or if he is the target of unkind humor due to being ‘gifted’. Just as some adults have the pressure of success so do gifted children. It is imperative to let our gifted children know that their peculiarities are welcomed and encouraged. That is where gifted services can help with the social and emotional needs of our gifted students. The intellect is there . . . much work needs to be assigned to fostering social and emotional perceptions.



Chip


Edward A. Hawks, III, M.Ed.
________________________________
Gifted Intervention Specialist / Exceptional Student Education
Kent City School District
________________________________
“What he seemed, he was—a wholly human gentleman, the
essential elements of whose positive character were two and
only two, simplicity and spirituality.”
(Douglas Southall Freeman on Robert E. Lee)



-----Original Message-----
From: Katie Thurston [mailto:kthurston61 at gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, June 23, 2013 11:35 AM
To: Edward A. Hawks III
Subject: Re: [Ohiogift] ungiftedness



Well said, Chip.



Katie



On 6/23/13, Edward A. Hawks III <eah3rd at windstream.net<mailto:eah3rd at windstream.net>> wrote:

> Mary's point about the military can also equate to corporate. If

> someone tends to 'mess up', let's promote him!

>

>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osu.edu/pipermail/ohiogift/attachments/20130625/535d49b9/attachment.html>