I'm currently reading "Re-forming Gifted Education" by Karen Rogers. WOW this book is packed w/ info about every conceivable method of instruction. I'm reading about cluster grouping at the moment which "refers to the practice of identifying the top 5-8 academically gifted (or intellectually gifted) students at a grade level and placing them in the same classroom at that grade level with a teacher bet suited and qualified to work with gifted students."

She goes on to say:


At the beginning of this section, you may have noted a distinction between the academically talented as a cluster or the intellectually gifted as a cluster. The "talented" cluster would include the most advanced learners at a grade level-those farthest ahead in their academic work. The differentiation for this group would probably include a great deal of subject-based acceleration in math, science, social studies, and language arts/English. Students would be identified for this "talent cluster" through their performances on achievement tests, preferably out of level tests. Compacting the curriculum would be the first st ep for any differentiation developed for them .

The "gifted cluster" might look somewhat different. The children in this cluster group will be identified by their general capacity to reason conceptually, think abstractly, and solve problems. Differentiation for this group should be based more on in-depth learning, independent study, exposure to higher order knowledge, and problem-based learning than on acceleration of subject matter. In some cases, the children in a "gifted" cluster might not be the most advanced workers at a grade level since the clsuter could include gifted children who are underachieving. Allowing the under achievers to participate in the cluster will nurture their motivation to learn and to become excited by challenge.

This clarification between these two cluster types is critical to the success of the practice. IF both types of children are included in the same cluster, the academic growth we would expect from ability grouping may be hindered. The intellectually gifted children may "drop out" if the leranign is too fast-paced and doesn't allow time for reflection and analysis, while the academically talented children may "drop out" if the curriculum is so slow that they feel they are not progressing rapidly enough in their achievement. And of course, the mix of carefully selected students with a teacher who will work with them effectively is of primary importance to to make this management strategy work."


to the parent, she suggests finding out which type of clustering your school uses ie gifted or talented, and then see if your child matches that type.


I wonder if this is what my district is trying to accomplish with it's creativity testing for the gifted program. They don't appear to be looking for academically talented kids.

I also wonder if distinction between these two clusters actually happen IRL?

My bet? Nope. Schools pretty much only want to tap the high achievers because they're easy to spot and work with. They're the teacher-pleasers. (And I can say that because I was one!)

GT but underachieving looks a lot like average and/or unmotivated to learn. Neither screams GT to most school professionals...so they don't want to put out the effort for those kids. They just figure the IQ test must be wrong.

That's my cynical take...

My take is that the "gifted cluster" activities are what you would find in a pullout situation. The "talented cluster" activities are things every advanced child should have access to in his every day core subjects.

DS's plan finally includes both of these aspects. Of course, it would be nice to have some of that "deep thinking" going on in the regular classroom too, but I see that as the goal of a GT grouping, be it in a class, or in a pullout.

I have to confess, I was more focused at first on the curricular things than the deeper thinking ones myself, because that need was more apparent, but I'm very grateful that our school does indeed focus on the first as well. DD11 is better served from the "gifted" perspective, but all three need some level of both. I would hate to have to choose one over the other, and am glad things are falling into place in our school. (We have a great new elementary GT teacher!!!)

I need to go read this book! I think I see this philosophy taking shape at our school this year. DD8 is intellectually gifted and thrives on achievement, I've seen her with a few other children and they are doing above level achievement work at school.
Recently the principal agreed that DD5 could do an independent project with a teacher. The agreement was that she will, and it sounds like they are using it as a test case for maybe forming the second type of "gifted pullout", where the emphasis is not strictly on doing academic work several grade levels above.

I really hope they are able to integrate this, as I'm not sure DD5 will ever be motivated by academic achievement.
In fact, I'd never guess a 5 year old could start underachieving, I would have guessed that comes much later.
Unfortunately, that's what we are dealing with here.

Thanks for the book rec, I'll definately check it out.

This post could not possibly be more timely - or more perfect for the school discussions going on in our house right now! Our two remaining school choices fall squarely in those two buckets - but the one identified as the "gifted" model above (in our case) is a 10 kid mixed-age classroom that would include kids who may not be GT but whose parents have selected the school because they believe in that depth and breadth of education and think their children would thrive in it.

We know in our gut what the right answer is (and unfortunately it is wildly expensive, prompting us to try to ration away said gut!) but we have been really struggling to put the difference into words...these paragraphs did it in spades. Thanks!

The deeper we get into this, the more grateful I am that we don't have to "choose". I think our current situation has just enough of both in it to make it work.

I had that book, but when I looked for it, I remembered the moment of generosity, when I gave it to our GT teacher. It really is a book aimed for teachers, if they are receptive to putting it into practice. The GT teacher we now have is the first one I've come across that I felt might actually try. She deserves the book, and my kids can still benefit!

Funny, it seems like DD's school follows the academically talented model for math and the intellectually gifted cluster model for language arts/other.

The GT pullout is of the second category - there are some kids in who are clearly underachieving in the regular classroom. There seem to be several ways of qualifying for it, all based on verbal criteria. The work done seems to be mostly aimed at getting the kids to think harder.

Then, in math the only thing offered is subject acceleration. On the plus side, math subject acceleration seems to be standard enough to have district procedures and tests.

Sounds like an interesting book, I'll have to find it.

In my experience, there is a pervasive "math fear" in the elementary teaching profession...maybe in the teaching profession in general (secondary math teachers excluded).

Our secondary GT teacher outright admits she doesn't know math. I think we have lots of truly wonderful creative thinkers in the teaching field, but perhaps their is a hole in creative math thinkers?

I've seen that. My son's teachers were thoroughly unimpressed by him being able to do long division on the 1st day of 2nd grade. Despite meetings and e-mails and letters over the course of the fall semester, nothing changed in his curriculum and he still had to do 4+7 (he was doing algebra by the end of 2nd grade and none of us even bothered to mention it).

Then one day in January, they let him read a 3rd grade book. He read it in the car driving to/from school and turned in a book report 7 days later. Turned out just reading it was a 3 week project for the 3rd grade.

All of a sudden, things changed. An offer for a grade skip came soon after. Go figure.

I don't understand this whole attitude (or lack thereof) toward mathematics.

If anyone out there has insight into it, I would love to understand more. Please tell me it's more complicated than a simple lack of understanding.

Val

A lot of people see math as just a set of facts to memorize. So they think that a kid who does long division in 2nd grade has been coached to memorize facts and algorithms. They don't know how to tell if a kid understands what he's doing because they don't even realize there is anything to understand.

Last year, I helped DD's third grade teacher teach long division. Of course the teacher knows the algorithm and can DO long division, but she doesn't really understand it. That makes it tough to teach other than saying, "This is how you do it. Copy what I do."