There are dozens of definitions of gifted out there. States and schools define it differently from one another. Ironically, not all kids who are most likely gifted qualify for services by reason of their giftedness. As a parent, I like the definition that comes from the transcript of a 1991 unpublished conference of the Columbus Group:
Columbus Group: "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."
I like this working definition, because it highlights not just that these children might need modifications in their schooling, but also why they require modifications in their schooling. The term asynchrony is also part of the definition: just because a child has the abilities to form complex hypotheses and develop sophisticated experiments to test them, they may not have yet developed the necessary organizational skills to actually execute the plan. Should a parent or teacher refuse to facilitate the experiment until the organizational skills catch up? Conversely, should a teacher be expected to facilitate all the missing secondary skills just to serve the scientific skills development? There is a needle to thread there, and no two people will see this issue exactly the same way.
Many school systems, however, define giftedness through a combination of quantified cognitive ability and academic performance, sometimes with additional qualitative “gifted behaviors” checklists or recommendations. Cognitive ability and academic performance are often quantified as a percentile (which means that the score is higher than that percent of children) or a scaled score (which quantifies the score relative to how far from average the score is). Gifted designation is generally for children who have either demonstrated the ability to learn at a level in excess of 90-95% of the population (cognitive ability) or they have demonstrated mastery of academic subjects at or above a level of 90-95% of the population (achievement).
If you’ve ever read a message board or blog about parenting, somewhere you have encountered venom aimed at parents who advocate for their gifted children. People make a series of well-worn arguments: All kids are gifted. The parents suffer from the snowflake syndrome. His parents work with him. I met their kid and he’s no Einstein. I knew a gifted kid once and his parents pushed him too much. I knew a kid whose parents thought he was gifted and he certainly didn’t act gifted. IQ isn’t what’s important, it’s work ethic.
I’ll address these issues in part II.
How do you define "gifted?
Columbus Group: "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."
I like this working definition, because it highlights not just that these children might need modifications in their schooling, but also why they require modifications in their schooling. The term asynchrony is also part of the definition: just because a child has the abilities to form complex hypotheses and develop sophisticated experiments to test them, they may not have yet developed the necessary organizational skills to actually execute the plan. Should a parent or teacher refuse to facilitate the experiment until the organizational skills catch up? Conversely, should a teacher be expected to facilitate all the missing secondary skills just to serve the scientific skills development? There is a needle to thread there, and no two people will see this issue exactly the same way.
Many school systems, however, define giftedness through a combination of quantified cognitive ability and academic performance, sometimes with additional qualitative “gifted behaviors” checklists or recommendations. Cognitive ability and academic performance are often quantified as a percentile (which means that the score is higher than that percent of children) or a scaled score (which quantifies the score relative to how far from average the score is). Gifted designation is generally for children who have either demonstrated the ability to learn at a level in excess of 90-95% of the population (cognitive ability) or they have demonstrated mastery of academic subjects at or above a level of 90-95% of the population (achievement).
If you’ve ever read a message board or blog about parenting, somewhere you have encountered venom aimed at parents who advocate for their gifted children. People make a series of well-worn arguments: All kids are gifted. The parents suffer from the snowflake syndrome. His parents work with him. I met their kid and he’s no Einstein. I knew a gifted kid once and his parents pushed him too much. I knew a kid whose parents thought he was gifted and he certainly didn’t act gifted. IQ isn’t what’s important, it’s work ethic.
I’ll address these issues in part II.
How do you define "gifted?