Michael F. Shaughnessy
Eastern New Mexico University
Portales, New Mexico 88130

1) You have recently spoken out against cuts in gifted education. Your "seven stupid arguments" are receiving much attention in the educational community. What are these 7 stupid arguments and why do you feel so strongly about them?

I have spent many years and a great deal of energy responding to those arguments. I began teaching in 1968 and taught in public middle schools and high schools for over 30 years, including 20 years as coordinator of a high school program for gifted and talented students.  When I earned my Ph.D. in Educational Policy from Fordham University in 2002, I began to synthesize my years of empirical observations into research-based summaries of the things we do to youngsters in the name of education.

My conviction derives from many years of interacting with highly capable students in public schools.  These are the students who can do the most with what schools can do for them.  At the same time, I have devoted a lot of time and energy responding to the reluctance of the general education community to acknowledge the very real needs of highly able students to grow intellectually, academically, and affectively.

The seven stupid arguments are:

# 1:  All children are gifted

#2: It is not fair to offer special services for gifted students. 

#3: Gifted students learn on their own. 

#4: Gifted programs are elitist. 

#5: Gifted programs are racist.

#6: Gifted children are weird. 

#7: Why bother?  Gifted students pass the state tests. 

The seven "stupid arguments" are the reasons people give for not meeting the needs of students who learn faster and understand concepts more deeply than their peers.  I do not believe that these arguments derive from a position of malice on the part of those who make them.  Instead, they come from ignorance, fear, and frustration.

Quite simply, many sincere and diligent educators do not know how to meet the needs of gifted students in the normal educational environment, nor do they feel that they have the time. Teachers are busy people, and the current emphasis on bringing all students up to standards - a very important and worthwhile goal, I might add --  results in an atmosphere of triage that often leaves the gifted student out in the educational cold.   As I have said, the lack of familiarity leads to contempt, or simply, frustration.  In addition, education of gifted students is a "hard sell" in an environment of reduced spending and the generally anti-intellectual atmosphere in our society that engulfs our schools.  In fact, using the term "gifted" implies that the students already have more than they need.

The Javits Grants have provided resources to training centers to develop curriculum and provide teacher training that makes the education of gifted students more imbedded in the way we do things in schools.  Piece by piece, one teacher at a time, the Javits grants have brought the awareness of gifted education into the classrooms and have provided the tools for teachers to serve all their students, even those who learn more quickly.

2) Nicholas Colangelo and his colleagues have recently written about "A Nation Deceived". He and his associates indicate that we should be doing more acceleration of gifted children. What are your thoughts?

Dr. Colangelo and his colleagues have produced a wonderful document that is the culmination of years of research.  He makes some very strong statements that explain how schools can provide valid educational experiences for highly able youngsters within existing structures and without extraordinary expense.  A Nation Deceived also explains why the general population and education policymakers, in particular, are reluctant to provide accelerated experiences for students.  We seem to be wed to the "grade + age" system we adopted a century ago in the Progressive Era.  That organizational pattern was designed to categorize the large numbers of immigrants and urban students who flooded the public schools.  That pattern was never intended to serve all the intellectual needs of all students.  In fact, intellectual needs were better served in the one-room schoolhouse where students progressed at their own rates through the conventional curriculum.  The one-room schoolhouse served students all along the spectrum, because it provided for individual progress at individual rates of growth.  Of course, we are no longer in a one-room schoolhouse world, but the Colangelo report tells us how schools might incorporate the spirit of that environment into our current structures.

3) Many administrators indicate that schools are doing "enrichment" for gifted children and youth. What in general is the quality of these programs?

The word "enrichment" has many meanings.  For that matter, so does the word "differentiation".  So the question remains, what are schools doing to differentiate or enrich the education of their most able students?  Therein lies the challenge.  If an "enrichment" program is "extra", i.e., the "pudding that is the reward for the broccoli", then the danger is that it will be regarded as a frill for all involved: the teachers, the students, and their parents.  You can see how "gifted enrichment programs" may be cut from school budgets, "enrichment periods" might take place at the end of the school day without any real focus on the quality of what happens during those periods, and much of what goes on during the day does not provide for growth among the more capable students.  I frequently use the metaphor of a piece of cake.  If the gifted program is the icing on the cake, then it is easy to make it rich but dispensable.  When one needs to cut calories, the icing is the first to go.  However, if the chocolate is swirled through the texture of the cake.if it is imbedded in the cake, then it will be an integral part of the cake experience.  Good curriculum has imbedded instruction and resources for highly able students.  The teachers mix the enrichment experiences into the texture of what they plan and deliver to the students.

Good gifted programs involve valid curricular experiences that move students forward in the breadth and depth of their reasoning.  Good gifted programs involve the "big ideas" and "key concepts" that are the bedrock of curriculum, as well as problem-solving activities that engage the minds of students in rigorous thought and debate.  It's a tough order, but designing curriculum and training teachers to provide these experiences have been the stock and trade of Javits-funded educational agencies like the Center for Gifted Education at the College of William and Mary and the National Research Centers for Gifted and Talented located throughout the country, as well as individual state agencies.  The Javits Grants are a lot like my Italian grandmother.  They feed a great many people with limited resources.

4) In your mind, what are the current "Seven great gripes" of gifted children? What are the seven great gripes of parents nowadays?

This is an interesting question.  I'm not sure I can come up with "seven", but I can say that if there are any gripes, they stem from a basic sense that the students are not being accepted for themselves.  Gifted children are children first.  They jump off the school bus in Kindergarten, a bit frightened, perhaps, but curious.  They are anxious and ready to interact with the school.  Some of them may be reading already; others might have other talents and skills.  So, what happens to them as they work their way through our schools?  They quickly learn that their needs might not be met by the place and the people they must encounter every day.  Moreover, they are expected to be patient with the process of "learning", when they can master the curriculum easily and quickly.

Some of them will tell you that they are quickly bored by the mundane and routine work that they complete easily and must wait for others to finish.  They feel constrained by the normal curriculum and the increasing lack of challenge as they progress through school. Some might act out, some might turn-off, some might accept the assumption that less is OK.  Then we wonder why they turn off and "underachieve" in the middle school grades.

  Others might complain about teachers who ignore and/or fear them.  However, I'll wager that each one will recall with affection a teacher who truly "got it" and recognized the student's individual talents.  Still others may feel stigmatized by a culture that regards them as "nerds", and in fact, stereotypes them in the media.  Most of the truly gifted students I have encountered in my 30+ years as an educator are pretty normal in their demeanor, but possess deep intellectual capacity that they sometimes have to put on hold or mask in order to fit into the mainstream.  They have to "suffer fools wisely" in a culture in which being smart isn't cool. 

As far as parents go, I assume you mean parents of gifted children.  I think all parents want what is best for their children, and what is best involves adequate challenge and progress for each child.  Parents of gifted youngsters are frustrated by a system that accepts mediocrity when they know their children can do more intense work.  Having entrusted their children to the system, parents worry that the system will not help their children grow adequately.  Some of these parents become insistent and are viewed as strident by the schools.  We have accepted a tremendous challenge in this democratic society of ours: that is, to educate all citizens.  Parents of gifted youngsters ask the basic question of how well we are educating their children.  It is not a question to be taken lightly.

5)  Some of your research focuses on math acceleration. Some of my research focuses on the personality of high achieving math students. How do the two mesh?

I am sure our research intersects.  I have conducted interviews with students in accelerated math programs.  What I have learned is that there is no prevailing stereotype of the basic demographic characteristics among successful accelerated students in terms of the "who", i.e., gender, race, SES, but study habits, early opportunities, and support systems (school and home) play an important role in the achievement of students.  It all goes back to recognizing the individual needs of all students and meeting those needs.  (I'd love to hear more about your research!)

6) What happens when single gender classes are formed? Do the students learn better? Whose idea was this?

This is actually a very complex question.  I am currently completing the third year evaluation of a public middle school that has had single gender classes since 2002. In the last few years, many public schools have opted for this arrangement, especially once the Office of Civil Rights ruled that it was allowable under the provisions of Title IX.  It is premature to make any definitive statements about my findings in terms of student learning, since I am currently conducting the analysis of their achievement scores over the past five years, but I can tell you that single-gender programs seem to be best received among younger adolescents.  As you know, I am coordinating a new book on the topic, in which six other researchers and myself are compiling our studies from around the nation, from coast to coast, from the Midwest to the South.  I am anxious to see all of our work in one place.  Stay tuned.!

7) Do gifted children think differently than normal children? How should parents be addressing this?

I don't claim to be an expert on brain studies, so I will defer to those who are for the answer to this question.  However, I will say that parents who suspect that their child is highly able, i.e. speaks early, reads early, shows precocity in any area, should explore resources that are available to help them understand and meet the needs of their children.  The National Association for Gifted Children ( www.nagc.org ) provides information for parents on how to identify gifted children and how to meet their needs.  Individual state associations for the gifted (subsidiaries of the NAGC) are also invaluable resources for parents.  After all, the parent is the child's first teacher and first advocate.  There are resources for parents, who should not be afraid to ask important questions of those organizations and their child's teachers.

8) What do you see as the main challenges that gifted children face in this age of post 9/11?

We are all challenged by a culture of fear and by the limited financial resources that have followed the attacks.   If we want our most capable students to think globally and to advance our society in the world's community, post-9/11 schools must address the issues that led to the terrorist attacks and how our society can both understand and respond to those issues.  I was coordinating a high school gifted program in 2001, and in the aftermath of 9/11, I spent a great deal of time helping students understand the attacks and working through judgmental attitudes and fears.  Gifted children are presumably the "leaders of tomorrow".  We assume and hope that our most capable youngsters will take on the challenges that face American society in the next century.  Therefore, we must make sure they have a broad understanding of the issues, including an awareness of how the issues are perceived in the world community. We must also provide them with the sharpest tools, both intellectually and in their work ethic, to take on the challenges they will encounter.

9) Does the recent "No Child Left Behind" legislation leave gifted children behind ?

If schools accept the minimum benchmark as "adequate" for all students, then gifted children are being left behind.

If school funding is devoted to raising all students to minimum standards but are diverted from providing valid experiences for the highly able students, then gifted students are being left behind.

If teachers are too tired, too overworked, and too frightened of their accountability on state tests, then gifted children may be left behind.

If curriculum is being "dumbed down" to meet the minimum standard, then gifted children are being left behind.

10) What question still needs to be asked in terms of gifted education and gifted children?

The essential question that remains is the most basic one:  Are we committed to appropriate progress for all students, even those who learn quickly and well?   If so, then we must actively and aggressively examine what schools can do for students we call "gifted" and how we can provide the resources schools need to meet those needs.  If the answer to the basic question is "No", then the seven stupid arguments derive from a much more sinister stance than I want to imagine.

Dr. Frances Spielhagen earned her Ph.D. in Educational Policy from Fordham University in 2002,   She had been a public school teacher for 34 years and is listed in Who's Who in American Education.  She has won several national and regional awards for her work with K-12 students.  She has also been a teacher educator as Assistant Professor of Education at Mount Saint Mary College in Newburgh, NY. (on leave)

From 1982 -2002, Dr. Spielhagen created and coordinated a program for secondary gifted students at Vernon Township High school, a large suburban school district in northern New Jersey.  She also coordinated the Advanced Placement Program and the Governor's School application process for students in that district.  She trained her students for several local, state, and national competitions, notably Future Problem Solving, Odyssey of the Mind, and the Academic Decathlon.

Dr. Spielhagen has made presentations on gifted education at state and national meetings:  the New Jersey State Department of Education, the New Jersey Association for Gifted Students, the NAGC, the Association for the Education of Gifted Underachieving Students, Confratute, and the William and Mary Institute for Teachers of the Gifted. 

Dr. Spielhagen has engaged in both funded and non-funded education research and policy analysis.  As an Eleanor Roosevelt Fellow in 1991-1992, she explored perspectives of achievement among gifted females, ages 9-26.  That study was the basis for a chapter in Remarkable Women (Hampton Press, 1996).  Through her AERA post-doctoral fellowship, she continues her work on acceleration policies in mathematics, working in collaboration with Dr. Joyce Van Tassel-Baska, of the Center for Gifted Education at the College of William and Mary, in Williamsburg, Virginia.