Why We Need Gifted Education Linda Kreger Silverman, Ph.D. Gifted Development Center At 2 weeks old, Jessica smiled on cue. At 14 months, she spoke in sentences and had a vocabulary of over 250 words. By the age of 2 she could do a 60-piece puzzle. She was so far beyond the other children in her daycare that she became the teacher's helper. At three, Jessie taught herself to read. What happens when children like Jessie enter school? Are schools prepared to allow her to progress at her own rate? Unfortunately, too often the answer to this question is no. Jessie is expected to wait patiently while other children learn skills and knowledge she has already mastered. She is implicitly taught to slow down her natural rate of learning to make the teacher and the other students more comfortable. But Jessie pays a price for her social adaptation (Kerr, 1985, 1994). She learns to be less than she can be, to slide by without stretching herself, to deny her talents, and, eventually, to trade her dreams for simpler, less demanding goals. This tragic waste of Jessie’s potential affects not only her, but also society, for we have all lost whatever gifts she might have contributed. Instead of teaching to the lowest common denominator, schools need to become a place where individual differences are appreciated, and where talents are recognized and nurtured. Our world needs Jessie’s gifts, and the fully developed abilities of all gifted and talented children. Since 1990, the educational system in the United States lost sight of this fact, and, unfortunately, other countries have followed suit. In America, there has always been tension between the passion for excellence and the democratic ideal of equity. In the 90s, the pendulum swung exceedingly in the direction of equity at the expense of excellence. The U. S. is just beginning to emerge from the “Lake Woebegone” mentality that all of America’s children are above average. In the fierce desire to promote equality of opportunity for all, we have inadvertently discriminated against children of high ability and we need to rectify this injustice. Equal opportunity does not and can never mean equal outcomes without obliterating individual differences and destroying the fabric of democracy. There are strong sanctions against persecution and oppression of people of different religions, races, national origins, and those with physical handicaps, but the gifted are still fair game. Elye Alexander (1992), in his first year at Harvard, writes that in public schools “assaults on a student’s integrity and self-respect occur with alarming regularity” (p. 13). Elye’s experience is echoed throughout the literature. In National Excellence, the federal report released in 1995, the following statement was made: In America we often make fun of our brightest students, giving them such derogatory names as nerd, dweeb, or, in a former day, egghead. We have conflicting feelings about people who are smart, and we give conflicting signals to our children about how hard they should work to 1 be smart. As a culture we seem to value beauty and brawn far more than brains. (p. 13) Kathi Kearney had a similar observation: Each time a taunt based on a child's exceptionality (such as “nerd” or “dweeb”) is permitted in the classroom or on the playground, each time a highly gifted child is deliberately held back academically, each time a school policy prohibits academic acceleration or continuous progress, we need to ask, “What messages are we giving all children about developing talents, about the value of academic achievement, and about intellectual diversity?” The school climate needs to support all students—including the most gifted. We would never allow racial or ethnic slurs to go on unchecked in today's schools, nor would we deliberately thwart the intellectual growth of a child with a disability. Yet, profoundly gifted children (and their families) routinely must deal with these issues.... (Kearney, 1993, p. 16) School has become an unsafe place for gifted children. Developmentally advanced children, like developmentally delayed children, are at risk in a society that prizes sameness. The Attack against Giftedness The gifted have been alternately applauded and neglected, exploited and ignored, mined as a national resource and then forgotten, but never in America's history has its brightest minds and their advocates endured such unbridled attack as in the School Reform movement of the 1990s. It began in Florida with George's (1992) How to Untrack Your Schools, published by the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD)—the main organization that influences educational administrators in the U.S. Then Margolin (1993; 1994) Goodness Personified: The Emergence of Gifted Children and Sapon-Shevin (1994) Playing Favorites: Gifted Education and the Disruption of Community chimed in. All three of these reformers linked gifted education with racism, elitism, and economic caste systems. SaponShevin (1994) told us that “gifted programs provide a way to resegregate schools without requiring people to move” (p. 35). Margolin (1994) was convinced that giftedness is a social construction to maintain hierarchical power relations in American society. George (1992) admonished that “all students [should be] deemed worthy and capable of learning everything the school has to offer” (p. 4), which implies that the offering of subjects suited for advanced students, such as Latin, calculus, or the study of Shakespeare, would automatically make some students feel unworthy. George’s ideas were implemented in a middle school in Gainesville, Florida, where all seventh graders took algebra together, even if some had not mastered addition and others were ready for calculus. Even Robert Slavin, whose research served as the empirical basis of the antiability grouping movement, admitted that accelerated mathematics courses are effective for gifted students (Slavin, 1990). And few realize that his data base purposely 2 excluded “studies of special classes for the gifted” (Slavin, 1987, p. 297). Ann Robinson (1990) reviewed 295 studies of cooperative learning, and found that the gifted were mentioned in one percent of them—3 studies. The only study that reported specific findings about the gifted was limited to 14 of these students! In a Point/Counterpoint debate with Ann Robinson in the Journal for Education of the Gifted, Slavin (1990) agreed that there is no research on the effects of cooperative learning on the “truly gifted”: Dr. Robinson is certainly correct in saying that the research base for applications of cooperative learning to the truly gifted is weak. Knowing this area well, I'd characterize it as virtually non-existent. (Slavin, 1990, p. 28) Yet, how many times were we told that the “research” indicated that ability grouping wasn't good for the gifted? Most opponents of gifted education believe that the majority of children labeled “gifted” are economically advantaged. In reality, the gifted come from all social classes (Dickinson, 1970), and poor children have less opportunity to achieve academic success. While the percentage of gifted students among the upper classes may be higher, there is a much greater number of gifted children among the lower classes (Zigler & Farber, 1985), because the poor far outnumber the rich. If we abandon gifted programs, gifted children from culturally diverse groups and low socio-economic circumstances will be the ones to suffer most. Affluent parents can send their children to private schools or some two parent families may opt to homeschool their children. But the majority of gifted children will not have those options. These children are prevented from fulfilling their potential when public school provisions for the gifted are eliminated. Instead, greater efforts must be made to include bright children from all socio-economic classes in gifted programs. Tracking vs. Ability Grouping During the height of the school reform movement, the distinction between ability grouping and tracking was blurred, with educational leaders treating them as if they were synonymous. I found this intellectually dishonest. Tracking involves the permanent placement of students into low, average, and high achieving groups. It is an organizational plan designed for students in the mid-range of abilities, and it has been discredited for years. Ability grouping at both extremes has been well researched for several decades, and has been found to be beneficial. Advocates of the gifted are not in favor of tracking. As far back as the 1920s, the early leaders in this field distinguished between these two very different concepts. Pritchard (1951) writes: Professor Hollingworth was convinced that homogeneous grouping offers the most effective type of education in populous centers...large enough for the organization of special classes. It is important to emphasize that Hollingworth did not interpret homogeneous grouping as advocating the sectioning of all students in the educational system on 3 an ability basis. She repeatedly stated that in the distribution of intelligence only the extremes are so far removed from the average that regular school cannot meet their needs. (p. 53) The False Accusation of Elitism The other problem that haunts us is the claim of elitism. Hollingworth (1926; 1930) also enlightened us on this topic based upon her careful study of homogeneously grouped gifted children. Work with competitors of one's own caliber tends to starve conceit, rather than feed it. Observers have recorded that a pupil coming into special classes often meets a successful rival for the first time. (1926, p. 31) If he remains in the special class, he is likely to leave it far less conceited than when he entered it. (1926, p. 302) Many of our pupils had their first experience of being equaled or surpassed at school work when they entered the special class. Several interesting episodes arose to suggest that conceit was corrected, rather than fostered, by the experience of daily contact with a large number of equals. No child was found who could not endure this experience, but a few parents were unable to withstand the humiliation of having a child reduced from "the head of the class," and withdrew their children to the regular classes again, where they could continue unrivaled. (1930, p. 445) Earnest Newland (1976), 50 years later, announced that elitism was in the eyes of the beholder. In his analysis, he found that there was no evidence whatsoever to support the notion that classes for the gifted breed elitism. In teaching and counseling gifted students, I have found that feelings of inferiority in the gifted are much more prevalent than feelings of superiority. Those children who act superior usually feel isolated and use their verbal abilities as a defense against the rejection of their agemates. Several years ago, I was invited to participate on a panel at the American Psychological Association conference in Boston, discussing the work of Leta Hollingworth. It was my first trip to Boston, and I stayed with my friend, Dr. Carole Ruth Harris. Carole had taught the first course on gifted education at Harvard University and received superb evaluations from her students, after which Harvard cancelled the course on the grounds that it was “elitist”! The thought that Harvard considered anything elitist made me reconsider the true meaning of elitism. Continental Airlines has it right when they call first class service “the elite class.” You aren’t given an IQ test to sit up front, you just pay more. Elitism is, and always has been, and always will be, a function of socio-economic differences, not 4 intellectual ones. So how did gifted education get the label of elitist? I outlined my theory in 1991, in an article entitled “Scapegoating the Gifted: The New National Sport.” America is rapidly losing its middle class and becoming split into a society of “haves” and “have nots.” While individuals in technology are becoming millionaires overnight, more and more citizens are becoming homeless. If elitism is an economic issue, only an economic shift can solve the problem. But the wealthy are not eager to share their resources, so a good way to avoid having to do this is to focus attention elsewhere—find a scapegoat, and the gifted became that scapegoat. It is far easier to divide financial resources more equitably than it is to divide one child’s intelligence among the other students in the class. Scapegoating is mass bigotry—blaming one group for all the ills of society. I realize that this is a powerful accusation, but it was the blatant animosity toward the gifted during the school reform movement that led to this conclusion. Many were aware of it, even those outside education. In an article in Atlantic Monthly, Daniel Singal (1991) linked the dramatic decline in SAT scores, as well as the inability of the top quartile of the student population to do the level of college work that their parents could do, to the battle between egalitarianism and excellence. He observed the following: Perhaps most crucial, the…strong animus against what it defines as “elitism,” has shifted the locus of concern in American education from high to low achievers. All over the country, educators today typically judge themselves by how well they can reach the least-able student in the system... [whereas] programs...for the gifted receive no more than token interest. The prevailing ideology holds that it is much better to give up the prospect of excellence than to take the chance of injuring any student's self-esteem.... These attitudes have become so ingrained that in conversations with teachers and administrators one often senses a virtual prejudice against bright students. There is at times an underlying feeling, never articulated, that such children start off with too many advantages, and that it would be just as well to hold them back until their less fortunate contemporaries catch up with them. (Singal, 1991, p. 6) Separating gifted students from each other and ignoring their needs actually fosters elitism to a greater extent than congregating them for advanced instruction. Students who are the smartest in their class for 12 years, never crack a book or take home homework, and ace all the tests without studying, can get a ballooned sense of their own importance and place in the universe. When gifted students are placed in classes together, they do not come to the conclusion that they are “better than everyone else.” Rather, they are humbled by finding peers who know more than they do. Hollingworth (1930) wrote, “Conceit was corrected, rather than fostered, by the experience of daily contact with a large number of equals” (p. 445). Much of the fear of elitism is based on the assumption that if individuals discover that they are unusually able, they will develop aristocratic values, caring little 5 for the plight of others. However, research indicates that exactly the opposite is true. Giftedness often is accompanied by a strong sense of responsibility, empathy, moral concern and compassion (Dabrowski, 1972; Hollingworth, 1942; Marland, 1972; Passow, 1988; Terman, 1925; Ward, 1985). The gifted are the backbone of social reform and egalitarianism. They care desperately about injustice (Roeper, 1988). Programming for gifted students enhances these higher values, rather than creating an aristocracy. Parallels at the Extremes When we look at the normal curve of intelligence, we see that the vast majority of the population (68%) is within one standard deviation of 100 IQ. Each standard deviation in either direction puts the child at risk for peer rejection and a lack of fit with the rate of learning in the regular classroom. Students whose abilities fall between one and two standard deviations below the norm (nearly 14%) are considered “slow learners”; they usually receive remedial services throughout their school career. At 2 standard deviations below the norm (approximately 70 IQ), children qualify for special education. A little over 2% of the population is considered to have needs so clearly differentiated from the norm that they are protected by federal mandates in many countries. Individual intelligence tests, comprehensive psychological assessment, staffings, individualized educational plans, certified teachers, modified curriculum and due process are all required by U. S. law for students more than 2 standard deviations below the mean. At 3 standard deviations below the mean (approximately 55 IQ), even greater intervention is needed. There is a continuum of services depending upon whether a child’s abilities fall in the mildly, moderately, severely, or profoundly delayed range. Yet, children who are 2, 3, 4, even 5 standard deviations above the norm, are often placed in regular classrooms with no modifications of any kind (Silverman, 1993). Like retardation, giftedness is a different ground that affects all of life’s experiences. No one imagines that retardation affects only learning rate, but many believe that the gifted are just like everyone else except that they learn faster. No one suggests that children who are developmentally delayed are “children first,” and that their delay is irrelevant. However, parents of children who are developmentally advanced are frequently admonished to remember that their children are “children first,” as if the giftedness were tangential to parental decisions. No one assumes that people outgrow retardation. Yet, I’ve heard many adults say, “I used to be gifted.” It is also worth noting that no other exceptionality is challenged to live up to its potential, nor is the rationale for funding based on the population’s potential to contribute to society. Giftedness as Asynchrony When giftedness is defined as high achievement in school or the potential for recognized accomplishment in adult life, we have little ground to stand on to defend gifted programs. The fact is that achievement is very much a function of opportunity 6 (Hollingworth, 1926), and greater opportunities for success are available to those who have greater financial resources. Achievement, particularly recognized individual achievement, is culturally determined (Silverman & Miller, in press). Another way of understanding giftedness is to see it as developmental advancement. In every culture, there are children who develop at a faster pace from early childhood on, are inquisitive to a greater degree than their agemates, generalize concepts earlier than their peers, demonstrate advanced verbal or spatial capacities at an early age, have superb memories, grasp abstract concepts, love to learn, have a sophisticated sense of humor, prefer complexity, are extraordinarily insightful, have a passion for justice, are profoundly aware, and experience life with great intensity. This alternative way of perceiving giftedness has been captured by the Columbus Group in the following definition: Giftedness is asynchronous development in which advanced cognitive abilities and heightened intensity combine to create inner experiences and awareness that are qualitatively different from the norm. This asynchrony increases with higher intellectual capacity. The uniqueness of the gifted renders them particularly vulnerable and requires modifications in parenting, teaching and counseling in order for them to develop optimally. (The Columbus Group, 1991) Internal asynchrony is due to differences in rates of physical, intellectual, emotional, social, and skill development in the gifted child. Uneven development is mirrored in external adjustment difficulties since the gifted person often feels different from, or out of place with, others. External asynchrony, then, is the lack of fit of the gifted child with other same-aged children and with the age-related expectations of the culture. Uneven development is a universal characteristic of giftedness. Gifted children, in any cultural milieu, have greater discrepancies among various facets of their development than average children (Silverman, 1993; 2002a). The clearest example of this unevenness is the rate at which mental development outstrips physical development. Binet constructed the mental age as a means of capturing the degree to which a child's mental abilities differ from those of other children his or her chronological age (Binet & Simon, 1908). The concept of mental age has proved enormously helpful in the understanding of retardation. We recognize the inherent difficulties of having a 17-year-old body with a 9-year-old mind. However, we still do not understand that it is equally problematic to have a 17-year-old mind trapped in the body of a 9 year old. This type of asynchrony doesn't arouse much sympathy. A child’s mental age predicts the amount of knowledge he or she has mastered, the rate at which the child learns, sophistication of play, age of true peers, maturity of the child's sense of humor, ethical judgment, and awareness of the world. In contrast, chronological age predicts the child’s height, physical coordination, handwriting speed, emotional needs, and social skills. The greater the degree to which cognitive development outstrips physical development, the more “out-of-sync” the child feels internally, in social relations, and in relation to the school curriculum. 7 The intelligence quotient, originally named the “mental quotient” by William Stern (1910), is simply the ratio of mental age to chronological age multiplied by 100. Like Stern, Binet never claimed that the IQ test could measure the totality of intelligence. He viewed intelligence as a rich, complex, multifaceted gestalt—a myriad of dynamically interrelated abilities. Emotion and personality also played critical roles in his conception of intellectual ability. He believed that intelligence was highly influenced by the environment, and that it could be improved through appropriate instruction. From Binet's developmental perspective, intelligence is a continuously evolving process, not a static amount of raw material which stays the same throughout life. Yet, intelligence testing is viewed today as a method of rigidly determining the limits of one's abilities—quite different from Binet's intent. Consistent with Binet's philosophy, the IQ should be seen as a minimal estimate of asynchrony—the extent to which cognitive development (mental age) diverges from physical development (chronological age). A child with an IQ of 135 has a nine-year-old body and a 12-year-old mind, while the extraordinarily gifted child, with an IQ of 170, has a 15-year-old mind. Asynchrony also increases with age. At 6 years old, the child with an IQ of 135 had a mental age of 8, and at 12, the same child will be mentally 16. The child with an IQ score of 170 was four years advanced mentally at the age of 6, and at the age of 12, this child will be eight years older mentally than physically. So asynchrony cannot be thought of as static; it is dynamic, constantly changing. The situation becomes even more complicated when it is understood that psychologically the child is an amalgam of many developmental ages (Tolan, 1989) and may appear to be different ages in different situations: In terms of development chronological age may be the least relevant piece of information to consider. Kate, with an IQ score of 170, may be six, but she has a “mental age” of ten and a half.... Unfortunately, Kate, like every highly gifted child, is an amalgam of many developmental ages. She may be six while riding a bike, thirteen while playing the piano or chess, nine while debating rules, eight while choosing hobbies and books, five (or three) when asked to sit still. How can such a child be expected to fit into a classroom designed around norms for six year olds? (p. 7) There is even a more challenging form of asynchrony that needs to be mentioned: the condition of dual exceptionality. The most asynchronous child is one who is both highly gifted and learning disabled. A remarkable and growing number of gifted children have either recognized or undetected learning disabilities, such as auditory processing weaknesses (Silverman, 2002b), writing disabilities (Silverman, 2003), visual perception difficulties (Silverman, 2001), spatial disorientation, dyslexia, attentional deficits and Asperger Syndrome (Lovecky, 2004). Marked discrepancies between strengths and weaknesses continue into adult life. 8 The concept of giftedness as asynchrony is very useful in attempting to gain understanding and support for the gifted. The perennial concern about elitism is bypassed by adopting this perspective. Asynchrony is not a competitive concept. More asynchrony is not better. If we recognize that giftedness is the mirror image of retardation, the 2 to 3% at the other extreme of the curve, then we can appreciate the vulnerability of this group and the critical need for special provisions to insure their optimal development. One of the greatest hindrances to this awareness is that the gifted is the only group with special needs that can pretend to be just like everyone else. Most gifted people expend an inordinate amount of energy their entire lives trying to hide their differences, all the while knowing in the inner recesses of their being that they are not like everyone else. Instead of feeling better than everyone else because they are smart, more often they feel that their differences make them defective. These feelings are expressed by a teenager in the book, On Being Gifted: We are not “normal” and we know it; it can be fun sometimes but not funny always. We tend to be much more sensitive than other people. Multiple meanings, innuendos, and self-consciousness plague us. Intensive self-analysis, self-criticism, and the inability to recognize that we have limits make us despondent. (American Association for Gifted Children, 1978, p. 9) But what is normal? Do these phrases sound familiar to you? “Why do you make everything so complicated?” “Why do you take everything so seriously?” “Why is everything so important to you?” Patty Gatto-Walden calls these “the terrible toos”: The gifted are “too” everything: too sensitive, too intense, too driven, too honest, too idealist, too moral, too perfectionistic, too much for other people! So they live with the great secret, instilled from early childhood on, that there is something inherently wrong with being who they are because they don’t fit in. It is emotionally damaging to be unacceptable in the place one must spend 6 hours of every day for 13 critical years of one’s development. Why Do We Need Gifted Education? Because gifted children exist and they will continue to exist despite their unpopularity. In fact, there are more and more gifted children being born each day, and we have a moral obligation to meet their needs. They need the opportunity for continuous progress; this as a basic educational right. All children have the right to learn new concepts in school every day. Because, despite cliches to the contrary, many gifted children do not make it on their own. Some become dropouts (Marland, 1972), delinquents (Seeley & Mahoney, 1981), underachievers (Supplee, 1990; Whitmore, 1989), depressed (Kerr, 1991) and 9 victims of suicide (Delisle, 1990). For every child with recognized gifts, still another goes unrecognized (Dickinson, 1970). Gifted children may have learning disabilities or other handicaps, and these dual exceptionalities tend to mask each other so that the child appears average (Silverman, 2003). Unrecognized and undeveloped talents may be lost permanently. The potential concert violinist must have a violin and continuous nurturing of this ability to fulfill its potential. Because giftedness does not develop in a vacuum. We have romanticized the “self-made man,” but research indicates that native ability requires considerable cultivation to develop fully (Bloom, 1985; Feldman, 1986). We cannot know how much talent has been lost for lack of discovery and development; nor can we assess the magnitude of that loss to the world—the music that was never composed, the medical cure that was never discovered, the political strategy that might have averted a war. Because eliminating programs for the gifted is as unethical as eliminating programs for the mentally handicapped. If children who are developmentally advanced had the same protection under the law as children who are developmentally delayed, it would also be illegal. It is unrealistic to expect a regular classroom teacher to teach one child addition and another pre-calculus. Yet, children of the same age may differ to that degree in their development. Special programs are essential for the welfare of children with special needs. Because democracy is endangered when socialization is substituted for education. While some countries are strengthening the curriculum of their brightest students and allowing them to go as far as possible in their learning, other countries are “dumbing down” the curriculum so that gifted students cannot be challenged. A onesize curriculum is as ill-fitting as putting everyone is the same size shoe. It is unconscionable to use the most capable students to serve as assistant teachers instead of allowing them to progress and develop their abilities. According to A Nation at Risk, a report from the U. S. National Commission on Excellence in 1984, over half the population of gifted students in the United States failed to match their tested ability with comparable achievement in school. A decade later, the findings were even more alarming. National Excellence: A Case for Developing America’s Talent (OERI, 1993) reported that “compared with the top students in other industrialized countries, American students perform poorly on international tests, are offered a less rigorous curriculum, read fewer demanding books, do less homework, and enter the work force or postsecondary education less well prepared.” Other findings reported in this document include: The regular school curriculum does not challenge gifted and talented students. Most academically talented students have already mastered up to one-half of the required curriculum offered to them in elementary school. Classroom teachers do little to accommodate the different learning needs of the gifted. Most specialized programs are available for only a few hours per week. 10 It is misguided to believe that holding back the brightest students magically helps the slower ones; bringing the top down does not bring the bottom up. Gifted children need a bill of rights: The Bill of Rights for Gifted Students The gifted have the right to continuous progress in every subject area. They have the right to early identification, individual assessment, and early intervention in order to promote their optimal development. They have the right to be taught by teachers who have received training in the learning and emotional differences of gifted children. They have the right to be placed with true peers who have similar abilities, interests, and pace of learning, in order to foster their social, emotional and academic development. They have the right to Individual Educational Plans designed to accommodate their asynchronous (uneven) development. They have the right to be respected members of their school communities and to be protected from abuse. And they have the right to be listened to regarding their own needs. Thank you for joining me in this important mission to create a solid foundation of support for the full development of all children, including gifted children. References Alexander, E. (1992). Learning to fly: A homeschooling retrospective. Understanding Our Gifted, 5(1), 1, 11-14. American Association for Gifted Children (1978). On being gifted. New York: Walker. Binet, A., & Simon, Th. (1908). Le developpement de l'intelligence chez les enfants. L'Annee Psychologique, 14, 1-94. Bloom, B. S. (Ed.). (1985). Developing talent in young people. New York: Ballantine Books. Columbus Group (1991, July). Unpublished transcript of the meeting of the Columbus Group. Columbus, OH. Dabrowski, K. (1972). Psychoneurosis is not an illness. London: Gryf. Dabrowski, K., & Piechowski, M. M. (1977). Theory of levels of emotional development (Vols. 1 & 2). Oceanside, NY: Dabor Science. Dabrowski, K. (1979/1994). The heroism of sensitivity. (E. Hyzy-Strzelecka, Trans.) Advanced Development, 6, 87-92. Delisle, J. R. (1990). The gifted adolescent at risk: Strategies and resources for suicide prevention among gifted youth. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 13, 212-228. Dickinson, R. M. (1970). Caring for the gifted. Boston: Christopher. 11 Feldman, D. H., with L. T. Goldsmith. (1986). Nature's gambit: Child prodigies and the development of human potential. New York: Basic Books. George, P. (1992). How to untrack your school. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Hollingworth, L. S. (1926). Gifted children: Their nature and nurture. New York: Macmillan. Hollingworth, L. S. (1930). Personality development of special class children. University of Pennsylvania Bulletin. Seventeenth Annual Schoolmen's Week Proceedings, 30, 442-446. Hollingworth, L. S. (1942). Children above 180 IQ Stanford-Binet: Origin and development. Yonkers-on-Hudson, NY: World Book. Kearney, K. (1993). Discrimination against excellence. Understanding Our Gifted, 6(2), 16. Kerr, B. A. (1985). Smart girls, gifted women. Columbus, OH: Ohio Psychology. Kerr, B. A. (1991). A handbook for counseling the gifted and talented. Alexandria, VA; American Association for Counseling and Development. Kerr, B. (1994). Smart girls two: A new psychology of girls, women and giftedness. Dayton, OH: Ohio Psychology Press. Lovecky, D. (2004). Different minds: Gifted children with AD/HD, Asperger Syndrome and other learning deficits. London: Jessica Kingsley. Lovecky, D. V. (1994). The moral child in a violent world. Understanding Our Gifted, 6(3), 3. Margolin, L. (1994). Goodness personified: The emergence of gifted children. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter. Marland, S., Jr. (1972). Education of the gifted and talented. (Report to the Congress of the United States by the U. S. Commissioner of Education). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI). (1993). National excellence: A case for developing America's talent. Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office. Newland, T.E. (1976). The gifted in socio-educational perspective. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Passow, A. H. (1988). Educating gifted persons who are caring and concerned. Roeper Review, 11, 13-15. Pritchard, M. C. (1951). The contributions of Leta S. Hollingworth to the study of gifted children. In P. Witty (Ed.), The gifted child (pp. 47-85). (The American Association for Gifted Children). Boston: D. C. Heath. Robinson, A. (1990). Cooperation or exploitation? The argument against cooperative learning for talented students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 14(1), 9-27. Roeper, A. (1988). Should educators of the gifted and talented be more concerned with world issues? Roeper Review, 11, 12-13. Sapon-Shevin, M. (1994). Playing favorites: Gifted education and the disruption of community. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Seeley, K. R., & Mahoney, A. R. (1981). Giftedness and delinquency: A small beginning toward some answers. In R. E. Clasen et al. Programming for the gifted, talented and creative: Models and methods (2nd ed.) (pp. 247-258). Madison: University of Wisconsin Extension. Silverman, L. K. (1991, December). Scapegoating the gifted: The new national sport. Keynote address for the Illinois Gifted Education Conference, Chicago, IL. [Printed in California's CAG Communicator, 1992, 22(3), pp. 16-19; Indiana's Images, 1991-1992, 6(2), pp. 1, 3-5; Louisiana's Gifted/Talented Digest, 1992, 19(3), pp. 4-7; Wisconsin's WCGT News, 18(6) pp. 811;18(7) pp. 5-7; & 18(8) pp. 5-7;Iowa Talented and Gifted Letter, April/May 1992, 18(3), pp. 1, 7-8.] Silverman, L. K. (1993). The gifted individual. In L. K. Silverman (Ed.), Counseling the gifted and talented (pp. 3-28). Denver: Love. Silverman, L. K. (1994). The moral sensitivity of gifted children and the evolution of society. Roeper Review, 17, 110-116. Silverman, L. K. (2001). Diagnosing and treating visual perceptual issues in gifted children. Journal of Optometric Vision Development, 32, 153-176. 12 Silverman, L. K. (2002a). Asynchronous development. In M. Neihart, S. Reis, N. Robinson, & S. Moon, (Eds.). The social and emotional development of gifted children: What do we know? National Association for Gifted Children (pp. 31-37). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press. Silverman, L. K. (2002b). Upside-down brilliance: The visual-spatial learner. Denver: DeLeon. Silverman, L. K. (2003). Gifted children with learning disabilities. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed., pp. 533-543). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Silverman, L. K., & Miller, N. B. (in press). A feminine perspective of giftedness. In L. Shavinina, Ed. The Handbook on Giftedness. New York: Springer Science. Singal, D. J. (1991). The other crisis in American education. The Atlantic Monthly, 268(5), 59-74. Slavin, R. E. (1987). Ability grouping and student achievement in elementary schools: A bestevidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 57, 293-336. Slavin, R. E. (1990). Cooperative learning and the gifted: Who benefits? Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 14(1), 28-30. Supplee, P. L. (1990). Reaching the gifted underachiever: Program strategy and design. New York: Teachers College Press. Terman, L. M. (1925). Genetic studies of genius: Vol. 1. Mental and physical traits of a thousand gifted children. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Tolan, S. (1989). Special problems of young highly gifted children. Understanding Our Gifted, 1(5), 1, 7-10. U. S. National Commission on Excellence (1984). A nation at risk. Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office. Ward, V. S. (1985). Giftedness and personal development: Theoretical considerations. Roeper Review, 8, 6-10. Whitmore, J. R. (1989). Re-examining the concept of underachievement. Understanding Our Gifted, 2(1), 1, 7-9. Zigler, E., & Farber, E. A. (1985). Commonalities between the intellectual extremes: Giftedness and mental retardation. In F. D. Horowitz & M. O'Brien (Eds.), The gifted and the talented: Developmental perspectives (pp. 387-408). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. *Note: This article contains excerpts from Silverman, L. K. (1995). Gifted and talented students. In E. L. Meyen & T. M. Skrtic (Eds.), Special Education & Student Disability: An Introduction (4th ed.) (pp. 377-413). Denver: Love; and Silverman, L. K. (1995). The universal experience of being out-of-sync. In L. K. Silverman (Ed.) Advanced development: A collection of works on giftedness in adults (pp. 1-12). Denver: Institute for the Study of Advanced Development. BIO: Linda Kreger Silverman, Ph.D., is a licensed psychologist. She founded and directs the Institute for the Study of Advanced Development, and its subsidiaries, the Gifted Development Center [www.gifteddevelopment.com], and the Visual-Spatial Resource [www.visualspatial.org]. Her latest book,Giftedness 101 (New York: Springer, 2013) describes the psychology of giftedness. Upside-Down Brilliance: The Visual-Spatial Learner (Denver: DeLeon, 2002), honors the gifts of the right hemisphere. Linda has written over 300 articles, books, and chapters, including the popular textbook, Counseling the Gifted and Talented (Denver: Love Publishing, 1993). She founded Advanced Development, the first journal on adult giftedness. Please feel free to duplicate this material and distribute. 13
© Copyright 2024