BRIDGING THEDIVIDE - BlackMesh
2
www.nagc.org continued on page 11 Fall 2009 I In the 1970s, I had the opportunity to make a presentation to the (then much smaller) NAGC Conference. In preparation for that presentation, I had made slides (no PowerPoint in those days) of teachers and students in classrooms from the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s. Presenting the slides in a random sequence, I challenged the audience to identify which decade each photo represented. The audience was feeling very proud because most people were able to place most of the photos in the correct decade. However, my next question de- flated their self-satisfaction and revealed my true concern: I asked how they were able to make their decisions. Their placements were based on a variety of factors that had noth- ing at all to do with teaching and learning; they relied de- pendably on such factors as hair styles and the clothing styles of both teachers and students. Little about the pictures revealed differ- ences in the classroom’s physical environment or other factors that might suggest differences related to teaching and learning. A quote I had located impishly suggested that “there is no national museum of education—because we are still using it all.” You might believe that this activity would not be effective today, and although I haven’t tried it, I suspect you might be correct. Let us not be too quick to congratulate ourselves, however. This anecdote may be a helpful backdrop, providing some context for the new issue of Gifted Child Quarterly. We need to set the stage with just a little more history. The Winter 1982 issue of GCQ (Volume 26, Number 1) focused specifically on the challenge of “Demythologizing Gifted Ed- ucation,” centering on the question, “What are the main is- sues that gifted education must confront effectively if it is to survive the 1980s?” The issue arose from the perception that, more than a decade after the release of the widely discussed Mar- land report, many common myths (“prac- tices or beliefs which we often discover upon close scrutiny to be more fanciful than truthful”) were persistently preva- lent in gifted education. The three general goals and pur- poses for the issue were to: stimulate some lively discussion, critical thinking, and creative research; shake loose the grip of some common myths; and suggest promising directions for more productive foundations for inquiry and practice. In the context of 25 years of extensive and accelerating complexity and change, we began in 2008 to reexamine the 1982 myths, assessing the extent to which they may still exist, have been resolved, or have been re- placed by new concerns. We learned that all 15 of the 1982 myths remain with us today, al- though some have been modified in form or content over time. In addition, several new myths emerged, resulting in a total of 19 myths addressed in the fall 2009 issue of GCQ. The goal of providing appropriate and challenging educa- tional programming—a goal gifted education specialists share with all concerned educators—must take into account these stubbornly persistent myths. Especially in times when the agendas of many educational policy makers seem focused on other priorities, we need to be advocates for quality edu- cation that recognizes and nurtures students’ strengths and talents. In order to play that advocacy role effectively on the broader educational “stage,” however, it is incumbent on us to be aware of the internal obstacles as well as the external Demythologizing Gifted Education: A 25-Year Journey BY DON TREFFINGER,CENTER FOR CREATIVE LEARNING,SARASOTA,FLORIDA BRIDGING THE DIVIDE IN THIS ISSUE From the Editor 2 Technology Untangled 3 eFolio 4 Curriculum Connection 6 Books, Books and More Books 8 School Spotlight 10 Interview with Josh Waitzkin 12 Mentorships 14 Happily Ever After 16 Book Review 17 Resources for the Educator 18 Featuring a 4-Page Pull-Out Convention Insert All 15 of the 1982 myths remain with us today, although some have been modified in form or content over time. “ “
Transcript of BRIDGING THEDIVIDE - BlackMesh
www.nagc.org
continued on page 11
Fall 2009
IIn the 1970s, I had the opportunity to make a presentation tothe (then much smaller) NAGC Conference. In preparationfor that presentation, I had made slides (no PowerPoint inthose days) of teachers and students in classrooms from the1950s, 1960s, and 1970s. Presenting the slides in a randomsequence, I challenged the audience to identify which decadeeach photo represented. The audience was feeling veryproud because most people were able to place most of thephotos in the correct decade. However, my next question de-flated their self-satisfaction and revealed my true concern: Iasked how they were able to make their decisions. Theirplacements were based on a variety of factors that had noth-ing at all to do with teaching and learning; they relied de-pendably on such factors as hairstyles and the clothing styles ofboth teachers and students. Littleabout the pictures revealed differ-ences in the classroom’s physicalenvironment or other factors thatmight suggest differences relatedto teaching and learning. A quote Ihad located impishly suggestedthat “there is no national museumof education—because we are stillusing it all.” You might believe thatthis activity would not be effective today, and although Ihaven’t tried it, I suspect you might be correct. Let us not betoo quick to congratulate ourselves, however. This anecdotemay be a helpful backdrop, providing some context for thenew issue of Gifted Child Quarterly.We need to set the stage with just a little more history. The
Winter 1982 issue of GCQ (Volume 26, Number 1) focusedspecifically on the challenge of “Demythologizing Gifted Ed-ucation,” centering on the question, “What are the main is-sues that gifted education must confront effectively if it is tosurvive the 1980s?” The issue arose from the perception that,
more than a decadeafter the release of thewidely discussed Mar-land report, manycommon myths (“prac-tices or beliefs which we often discover upon close scrutinyto be more fanciful than truthful”) were persistently preva-lent in gifted education. The three general goals and pur-poses for the issue were to: stimulate some lively discussion,critical thinking, and creative research; shake loose the gripof some common myths; and suggest promising directionsfor more productive foundations for inquiry and practice.In the context of 25 years of extensive and accelerating
complexity and change, we beganin 2008 to reexamine the 1982myths, assessing the extent towhich they may still exist, havebeen resolved, or have been re-placed by new concerns. Welearned that all 15 of the 1982myths remain with us today, al-though some have been modifiedin form or content over time. Inaddition, several new mythsemerged, resulting in a total of 19
myths addressed in the fall 2009 issue of GCQ.The goal of providing appropriate and challenging educa-
tional programming—a goal gifted education specialistsshare with all concerned educators—must take into accountthese stubbornly persistent myths. Especially in times whenthe agendas of many educational policy makers seem focusedon other priorities, we need to be advocates for quality edu-cation that recognizes and nurtures students’ strengths andtalents. In order to play that advocacy role effectively on thebroader educational “stage,” however, it is incumbent on usto be aware of the internal obstacles as well as the external
Demythologizing Gifted Education:A 25-Year JourneyBY DON TREFFINGER, CENTER FOR CREATIVE LEARNING, SARASOTA, FLORIDA
BRIDGING THE DIVIDE
IN THIS ISSUEFrom the Editor 2
Technology Untangled 3
eFolio 4
Curriculum Connection 6
Books, Books andMore Books 8
School Spotlight 10
Interview with JoshWaitzkin 12
Mentorships 14
Happily Ever After 16
Book Review 17
Resources for the Educator 18
Featuringa 4-Page Pull-OutConvention Insert
All 15 of the 1982myths remain with
us today, although somehave been modified in
form or contentover time.
““
Louis Teacher of Distinction. This dedication reflects in stu-dent accomplishment. Kathi Harshman, a math and dramateacher states, “Churchill students are not only involved inachieving academic success, but also discovering areas ofstrength that they never knew they had.”
At New City School, teachers identify student talentsthrough multiple intelligences and then tailor curriculum totheir talent. “The emphasis on multiple intelligences allowsstudents to understand themselves and their peers in a sensethat is broader than the traditional linguistic and mathemat-ical skill set,” a parent stated. Teacher Christine Wallach says,“The students learn how to solve problems within the class-room and within the school. At New City, the learning is ex-periential and leads the students to understand who they areas members of society and as individual learners.”
New City recognizes different talents students have, givingthem a chance to develop their talent to its full potential.One parent commented, “The focus on diversity, the devel-opment of the emotional intelligence of the child, and theemphasis on creating a robust foundation for learning andgrowth are key components of the educational program atNew City.”
Churchill and New City redefine what it means to be agifted student. Leaders like the ones found in the halls ofthese schools are the true MythBusters our studentsneed. �
threats, and to invest our time, energy, and efforts instrengthening practices that will finally lay these myths torest. We might argue that effective advocacy to others willbe enhanced by our ability to demonstrate that our ownefforts and actions reflect the best available knowledgeand practice for students.
The broad areas represented in the 19 myths addressedin the Fall 2009 issue of GCQ span the core themes andtopics that frame effective practice as well as an agendafor advocacy: a contemporary, inclusive view of the na-ture and definition of “gifts and talents,” a commitment toidentification practices that reflect purposeful efforts tounderstand students’ strengths and educational needs,and programming that responds to the strengths, talents,and sustained interests of our students in diverse and var-ied ways. As practitioners (in the school setting, inteacher education and research, or as advocates for pro-gram support), awareness of these myths, and a renewedcommitment to putting them behind us, can create afoundation not only for survival in difficult times, but alsofor constructive progress that will benefit educators, par-ents, and students everywhere. �
BRIDGING THE DIVIDEcontinued from page 1
www.nagc.org FALL 2009 | 11
