Ideas of “Giftedness” Hurt Students

[Anonymous]

Stumbled across this interesting article - good for those of you freaking out about AAP, maybe that label isn't so great!

________________________________________________________________________________________

https://www.youcubed.org/think-it-up/ideas-of-giftedness-hurt-students/

Mathematics is a beautiful subject, with ideas and connections that can inspire all students. But too often it is taught as a performance subject the role of which, for many, is to separate students into those with the math gene and those without.

Disturbingly, mathematics has been pulled into a culture of performance and elitism in the United States, and I believe that to achieve higher and equitable outcomes we need to recognize the elitist role that mathematics often plays in our society.
For mathematics can, on the one hand, be thought of as an incredible lens through which to view the world; an important knowledge, available to all, that empowers young people to think quantitatively about their work and lives and that is equitably available to all students through study and hard work. On the other hand, mathematics can be thought of a subject that separates children into those who can and those who cannot, and that is a valuable sorting mechanism, allowing people to label some children as smart and others as not.

The Myth of the Mathematically Gifted Child

Some people, including some teachers, have built their identity on the idea they can do well in math because they are special, genetically superior to others. People try hard to hang on to the idea of children who are genetically gifted in math, and the whole “gifted” movement in the United States is built upon such notions. But we have a great deal of evidence that although people are born with brain differences, such differences are eclipsed by the experiences people have during their lives, as every second presents opportunities for incredible brain growth (Thompson, 2014; Woollett & Maguire, 2011).

Even the people whom society thinks of as geniuses actually worked really hard and in exceptional ways to achieve their accomplishments.
Einstein did not learn to read until he was nine and he failed his college entrance examination, but he worked exceptionally hard and had a very positive mindset – he celebrated mistakes and was extremely persistent. Rather than recognizing and celebrating the nature of exceptional work and persistence, the U.S. education system focuses on “gifted” students who are given different opportunities, not because they show great tenacity and persistence but often because they are fast with math facts. The labeling of students as gifted hurts not only the students who are deemed as having no gifts but also the students who are given the gifted label, as it sets them on a fixed mindset pathway, making them vulnerable and less likely to take risks in order to avoid making mistakes and potentially losing their gifted label.

When mathematics is taught with an attitude of elitism and is held up as being harder than other subjects and suitable only for the gifted few, a tiny subset of those who could achieve in mathematics—and the scientific subjects, which require mathematics—do so.

When this elitist idea is combined with stereotypical ideas of who has the gift, the results are harsh inequities.
The national U.S. data on students who take advanced mathematics provides strong evidence of the impact of the elitist culture of mathematics in the United States. In 2013, 73% of math doctorates were male and 94% were white or Asian. The proportion of women pursuing mathematics PhDs between 2004 and 2013 actually fell, from 34% of students to 27% of students (Vélez, Maxwell, & Rose, 2013). These data should be cause for high-level discussions of mathematics inequities, prompting policy makers and others to seriously consider what we are doing in K–12 schooling that contributes to these growing inequities.

The idea of innate talent exists in several fields beyond math, with equally damaging results.
When researchers looked into the reasons for the demographic representation of those pursuing PhDs across 30 fields, they found something fascinating. They found that the subjects in which professors believed that raw, innate talent is the main requirement for success are exactly those subjects in which women and African American students are underrepresented (Leslie, Cimpian, Meyer, & Freeland, 2015). Mathematics was the STEM subject whose professors were found to hold the most fixed ideas about who could learn. Researchers found that the more a field values giftedness, the fewer female PhDs there were in the field, and this correlation was found to hold across all 30 fields they investigated. These ideas about giftedness cause fewer women and people of color to participate because strong stereotypes persist about who really belongs in math (Steele, 2011). The research showing that when teachers hold ideas of “giftedness” it hurts women and some students of color is extremely important for K-12 classrooms as well as universities. For if such ideas are harmful for PhD students we know they will be as or more damaging to younger students.

It is imperative for our society that we move to a more equitable and informed view of mathematics learning.
Our conversations and work with students need to reflect the new science of the brain and communicate to all that everyone can learn math well, not only those believed to hold a “gift”. This could well be the key to unlocking a different future – one in which math trauma is a thing of the past and students from all backgrounds are given access to high quality mathematics learning opportunities.

jobookThis article contains excerpts from Jo Boaler’s new book, Mathematical Mindsets: Unleashing Students’ Potential Through Creative Math, Inspiring Messages and Innovative Teaching

References:

Boaler, J. (2015). Mathematical Mindsets: Unleashing Students’ Potential Through Creative Math, Inspiring Messages and Innovative Teaching. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Leslie, S.-J., Cimpian, A., Meyer, M., & Freeland, E. (2015). Expectations of brilliance underlie gender distributions across academic disciplines. Science, 347(6219), 262–265.

Steele, C. (2011). Whistling Vivaldi: How Stereotypes Affect Is and What We Can Do. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.

Thompson, G. (2014, June 2). Teaching the brain to learn. THE Journal.

Woollett, K., & Maguire, E. A. (2011). Acquiring “The Knowledge” of London’s layout drives structural brain changes. Current Biology, 21(24), 2109–2114.

Vélez, W. Y., Maxwell, J. W., & Rose, C. (2013). Report on the 2012–2013 new doctoral recipients. Notices of the American Mathematical Society, 61(8), 874–884.

[Anonymous]

I'm a woman who briefly considered a math major, and settled for a BSEE. I suppose it's wrong of me to say that, in my experience, I was never steered away from math or treated differently, but I do think that having a solid grasp of spatial perception is innate. Some people have an excellent sense of spatial perception and others less so.

[Anonymous]

^^^ Also, I think that some students learn because of good math teachers, and other students learn despite bad math teachers. Instead of ignoring innate skills, we should focus on improving math teachers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Stumbled across this interesting article - good for those of you freaking out about AAP, maybe that label isn't so great!

________________________________________________________________________________________

https://www.youcubed.org/think-it-up/ideas-of-giftedness-hurt-students/

Mathematics is a beautiful subject, with ideas and connections that can inspire all students. But too often it is taught as a performance subject the role of which, for many, is to separate students into those with the math gene and those without.

Disturbingly, mathematics has been pulled into a culture of performance and elitism in the United States, and I believe that to achieve higher and equitable outcomes we need to recognize the elitist role that mathematics often plays in our society.
For mathematics can, on the one hand, be thought of as an incredible lens through which to view the world; an important knowledge, available to all, that empowers young people to think quantitatively about their work and lives and that is equitably available to all students through study and hard work. On the other hand, mathematics can be thought of a subject that separates children into those who can and those who cannot, and that is a valuable sorting mechanism, allowing people to label some children as smart and others as not.

The Myth of the Mathematically Gifted Child

Some people, including some teachers, have built their identity on the idea they can do well in math because they are special, genetically superior to others. People try hard to hang on to the idea of children who are genetically gifted in math, and the whole “gifted” movement in the United States is built upon such notions. But we have a great deal of evidence that although people are born with brain differences, such differences are eclipsed by the experiences people have during their lives, as every second presents opportunities for incredible brain growth (Thompson, 2014; Woollett & Maguire, 2011).

Even the people whom society thinks of as geniuses actually worked really hard and in exceptional ways to achieve their accomplishments.
Einstein did not learn to read until he was nine and he failed his college entrance examination, but he worked exceptionally hard and had a very positive mindset – he celebrated mistakes and was extremely persistent. Rather than recognizing and celebrating the nature of exceptional work and persistence, the U.S. education system focuses on “gifted” students who are given different opportunities, not because they show great tenacity and persistence but often because they are fast with math facts. The labeling of students as gifted hurts not only the students who are deemed as having no gifts but also the students who are given the gifted label, as it sets them on a fixed mindset pathway, making them vulnerable and less likely to take risks in order to avoid making mistakes and potentially losing their gifted label.

When mathematics is taught with an attitude of elitism and is held up as being harder than other subjects and suitable only for the gifted few, a tiny subset of those who could achieve in mathematics—and the scientific subjects, which require mathematics—do so.

When this elitist idea is combined with stereotypical ideas of who has the gift, the results are harsh inequities.
The national U.S. data on students who take advanced mathematics provides strong evidence of the impact of the elitist culture of mathematics in the United States. In 2013, 73% of math doctorates were male and 94% were white or Asian. The proportion of women pursuing mathematics PhDs between 2004 and 2013 actually fell, from 34% of students to 27% of students (Vélez, Maxwell, & Rose, 2013). These data should be cause for high-level discussions of mathematics inequities, prompting policy makers and others to seriously consider what we are doing in K–12 schooling that contributes to these growing inequities.

The idea of innate talent exists in several fields beyond math, with equally damaging results.
When researchers looked into the reasons for the demographic representation of those pursuing PhDs across 30 fields, they found something fascinating. They found that the subjects in which professors believed that raw, innate talent is the main requirement for success are exactly those subjects in which women and African American students are underrepresented (Leslie, Cimpian, Meyer, & Freeland, 2015). Mathematics was the STEM subject whose professors were found to hold the most fixed ideas about who could learn. Researchers found that the more a field values giftedness, the fewer female PhDs there were in the field, and this correlation was found to hold across all 30 fields they investigated. These ideas about giftedness cause fewer women and people of color to participate because strong stereotypes persist about who really belongs in math (Steele, 2011). The research showing that when teachers hold ideas of “giftedness” it hurts women and some students of color is extremely important for K-12 classrooms as well as universities. For if such ideas are harmful for PhD students we know they will be as or more damaging to younger students.

It is imperative for our society that we move to a more equitable and informed view of mathematics learning.
Our conversations and work with students need to reflect the new science of the brain and communicate to all that everyone can learn math well, not only those believed to hold a “gift”. This could well be the key to unlocking a different future – one in which math trauma is a thing of the past and students from all backgrounds are given access to high quality mathematics learning opportunities.

jobookThis article contains excerpts from Jo Boaler’s new book, Mathematical Mindsets: Unleashing Students’ Potential Through Creative Math, Inspiring Messages and Innovative Teaching

References:

Boaler, J. (2015). Mathematical Mindsets: Unleashing Students’ Potential Through Creative Math, Inspiring Messages and Innovative Teaching. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Leslie, S.-J., Cimpian, A., Meyer, M., & Freeland, E. (2015). Expectations of brilliance underlie gender distributions across academic disciplines. Science, 347(6219), 262–265.

Steele, C. (2011). Whistling Vivaldi: How Stereotypes Affect Is and What We Can Do. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.

Thompson, G. (2014, June 2). Teaching the brain to learn. THE Journal.

Woollett, K., & Maguire, E. A. (2011). Acquiring “The Knowledge” of London’s layout drives structural brain changes. Current Biology, 21(24), 2109–2114.

Vélez, W. Y., Maxwell, J. W., & Rose, C. (2013). Report on the 2012–2013 new doctoral recipients. Notices of the American Mathematical Society, 61(8), 874–884.

Hmmm...I think struggle and talent both have a role in math achievement. My son is demonstrably gifted in math-- but he receives a lot math challenge which instills the proper tenacity and work ethic necessary for success. I am a fan of a "growth mindset" where we can get better at things through maturity, instruction, and effort. We have seen it happen in writing (DS struggles with writing).

I don't know why giftedness is such a fraught topic-- in every other area of life, we accept that some people have innate talent. We celebrate it-- but intellectual giftedness is elitism. Yes, I know that there are people with fewer resources and opportunities. It's unfair and I would love to see changes. I'm of the the mind however, that intellectual giftedness should not be coddled *or* dismissed.

Maybe the point is to say that we shouldn't tell people that they "can't" do something because they lack some innate ability? I'm all for that-- but I hate it when people imply that my son's school needs are the same as other children. His IQ is in the EG range-- his needs are not the same.

[Anonymous]

Love that you posted THE WHOLE ARTICLE, rather than a link. Thanks for that!

[Anonymous]

we shouldn't tell people that they "can't" do something

this is what AAP says to capable children who don't make it in

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

we shouldn't tell people that they "can't" do something

this is what AAP says to capable children who don't make it in

Compacted math is available to anyone who is selected, isn't it? So it's not AAP that says that, it's the test, or more accurately, parents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

we shouldn't tell people that they "can't" do something

this is what AAP says to capable children who don't make it in

That's not what "AAP says". All missing the cut for AAP tells a student, or a parent straining to detect such a message, is that they'll be learning the same subjects in a different way and in a different setting for 4-6 years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

we shouldn't tell people that they "can't" do something

this is what AAP says to capable children who don't make it in

Compacted math is available to anyone who is selected, isn't it? So it's not AAP that says that, it's the test, or more accurately, parents.

You're kidding, right? Yes, compacted math is available to anyone who qualifies, but what about the other core subjects? Having a program like AAP does exactly that: it tells some kids that the "can't" do something, without ever letting them try. I completely agree with the PP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

we shouldn't tell people that they "can't" do something

this is what AAP says to capable children who don't make it in

Compacted math is available to anyone who is selected, isn't it? So it's not AAP that says that, it's the test, or more accurately, parents.

You're kidding, right? Yes, compacted math is available to anyone who qualifies, but what about the other core subjects? Having a program like AAP does exactly that: it tells some kids that the "can't" do something, without ever letting them try. I completely agree with the PP.

The article is about math, that's why I posted about compacted math. The other core subjects are the same in all ES classes, not compacted.

[Anonymous]

Copying over an entire article is against forum rules.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

we shouldn't tell people that they "can't" do something

this is what AAP says to capable children who don't make it in

Compacted math is available to anyone who is selected, isn't it? So it's not AAP that says that, it's the test, or more accurately, parents.

You're kidding, right? Yes, compacted math is available to anyone who qualifies, but what about the other core subjects? Having a program like AAP does exactly that: it tells some kids that the "can't" do something, without ever letting them try. I completely agree with the PP.

Actually, compacted math is not available in all FCPS schools. FCPS has done exactly what this article discusses and assumed that the kids at Bailey's Elementary, a Title I school, aren't capable of handling compacted math, so compacted math is not offered at that school. This perpetuates the cycle of lower SES kids performing at a lower level in math because they are never given the opportunity to excel.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

we shouldn't tell people that they "can't" do something

this is what AAP says to capable children who don't make it in

Compacted math is available to anyone who is selected, isn't it? So it's not AAP that says that, it's the test, or more accurately, parents.

This is true in most schools, but a few ES in the county still do not have compacted/accelerated math and AAP is the only way to access it.

[Anonymous]

Having two huge groups of students, one labeled "gifted" and the other labled "regular," does a huge disservice to all kids. Most kids labled gifted often are simply good at academics. That doesn't always equate to giftedness, which is exceedingly rare. They go through life thinking they're somehow more intelligent than everyone else, and their attitude reflects that. Then they find out along the way, in high school or college, that there are other kids who are far smarter and/or actually gifted, and they don't know what to do with that information after being told throughout elementary and middle school that they're "special."

The other group is clearly told at age eight that they're not "special" - they're only regular, normal kids and shouldn't dare to think of themselves as capable of more. This group is told over and over that they're not as smart as the other group, and that they never will be. The reality for them is that they often go off to high school, take more interesting classes, and realize that they are indeed capable of far more than anyone previously let on. They go off to college and discover a whole world of possibility. And they wonder why on earth they were told by the elementary and middle schools that they weren't just as special as the kids in the AAP group.

What a completely screwed up system.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Copying over an entire article is against forum rules.

Report the post