GIFTED EDUCATION PRESS QUARTERLY

WINTER 1994

VIEWPOINTS AND THOUGHTS ON GIFTED EDUCATION

BY STEVE ALLEN

VAN NUYS, CALIFORNIA

Those who are already aware of the importance of special treatment for gifted children require no further encouragement to support so vital a cause. The real target audience is that 99-plus percent of the human race that has yet to even become aware of the problem, much less convinced of the necessity to address it. And, sadly, the misfortune of those trying to help the gifted is that their campaign is being conducted in a time of general social disarray, one manifestation of which is that literally all of those working to keep our society together are faced with funding problems. There would be no point in listing the various components of the difficulty. Every part of the large machine requires financial oiling.

GIFTED EDUCATION AND ETHNIC MINORITIES

I choose next to make a few observations about the dilemma of the gifted as it relates to racial conflict in American society. That general social justice for our nation's African-Americans and Hispanics has not yet been achieved is clear enough. Those Anglos who try to be helpful in this connection can be motivated either out of simple compassionate concern or by the perception that all of us suffer if our disadvantaged citizens suffer. History demonstrates that quite regardless of color the masses of the poor will not forever supinely accept the fate imposed on them. Surely we do not have to wait for the next revolution to become aware of something so self-evident. Already a significant portion of our tax money is committed to shoring up the social structure of inner-city and rural black and Hispanic communities.

Tragically, despite efforts that are formidable if not our potential best, the news for the American poor, of all races, continues to be depressing. One glimmer of light in the surrounding gloom, however, is that certain blacks and Latinos -- by no means only entertainers and athletes -- do somehow contrive to become educated and to achieve success in the workplace, not only at blue-collar jobs but in the professions. Although a few individual blacks and Latinos view all whites as the enemy, their attitude is just as misguided as that of white racists who have contempt for all minorities. The average American white is overjoyed at any evidence of minority success. It is clear that our corporations have by-and-large been diligent in their search for qualified employees, regardless of race. All of this, of course, is directly related to the special problems encountered by those who are blessed with superior intelligence of one sort or another, in that it is now generally appreciated that even if we are doing a generally lousy job of helping the poorest members of our nation's minorities, it is at least possible to do something more practical for the small percentage who are fortunately endowed.

A fascinating question is: To what extent are those who are sometimes openly hostile to special education for the gifted in our public schools themselves of black or Latino background? I would not be surprised that some are, although it does not follow that their negativity is the result of envy or any other unseemly emotion. The primary reasons may simply be: 1) an awareness of the dreadfully inferior educational opportunities available to the majority of poor children, and 2) competition for already scarce funds.

Fortunately for purposes of clarity, no one has ever argued that we ought to help only the less fortunate or only the brightest. Arguments are about degree, not essence. But if there are any citizens, regardless of color, who cannot see the necessity for helping the best and brightest minority children, then it must be explained to them they should change their minds on the issue, if only out of group self-interest, for where will the next generation of African-American and Hispanic leaders come from if all poor children receive an inferior education?

FUNDING GIFTED PROGRAMS

As regards the funding crisis, something relevant happened recently when I was addressing an audience of several hundred people connected with the San Diego Anti-Crime Commission.

Rather than making a conventional address I responded to questions put to me on the spot. Someone had just asked, "How can we get more cops on our streets?" I said, "Well, to approach the question logically it's clear that at the moment we have two alternatives -- either to get more cops or fewer streets. Given that it is unlikely that we will actually start closing up certain neighborhoods, it therefore follows that we will get more policemen in our neighborhoods the same way we get anything else in this world -- by paying for it. Civic expenditures of that sort are, as you know, provided by the taxpayer, so it boils down to this: you're not going to get more cops on the street until we all stop whining about our taxes and assume responsibility for funding the many programs that our very survival demands." To my surprise, the response was hearty applause, and from a largely conservative audience.

As applied to the controversy about gifted children, this means that our national leaders -- all of them -- the President, members of Congress, our governors and local leaders are going to have to stop trying to make political capital by sounding like Ronald Reagan on the subject of tax-paying. At present, funds for all sorts of valuable educational programs are being cut on the quite understandable grounds that there isn't enough money to pay for them. But that is outrageous. We've got to get the money for the programs that hold America together -- but that means that there should now be, in the conservative intellectual camp, an exchange of ideas on the narrow subject of taxation. Obviously, no conservative, capitalist, or libertarian argues that taxes themselves should be outlawed. It follows that there's nothing essentially wrong with taxation -- the question is: How much is too much? Who says so? According to what principles? Do we want a strong military? Do we want at least reasonably good schools? Do we want a sane health-care program? Do we want security on our streets and in our homes? Damned right we do; therefore conservatives are going to have to ask themselves about the practical effects of their budget-cutting. At what point do cuts become counterproductive? Obviously lowering an individual's taxes enables him to acquire a few more CDs, take a trip to Las Vegas, or buy a slightly more expensive car. But if these expenditures are made at the cost of deteriorating education for our children, should his intellectual advisors point out the cause-and-effect relationship to him?

By the way, I would not want to suggest, by these observations, that conservative intellectuals, as individuals, do not support programs for the gifted. I assume that most of them do. But all the more reason, then, for them to enlighten those in a position to influence the providing of funds for programs that are not luxuries but crucial necessities.

INFLUENCES DURING MY HIGH SCHOOL YEARS

I attended five high schools in all (something I do not recommend), but as I look back at those years, of which it took me five rather than the traditional four to complete the process, I recall something that might be helpful in the present context. I refer to clubs. I remember, particularly at Hyde Park High School in Chicago, that there were Latin clubs, Chess clubs, math clubs and other special groupings that brought together students who shared assorted interests. Perhaps the word gifted itself ought not to be used because of its effects on other students not so fortunate, but it should be a simple matter to form a "creative thinking" club that would draw together students who are, in fact, gifted.

As I recall, there were no academic credits offered for club activities in the schools I attended; involvement was voluntary. But I have little doubt that bright young people in a given student body would gravitate to such stimulating opportunities.

While I have never described myself as gifted, I suppose that I was blessed, by the accidental roll of the genetic dice, with a number of abilities that set me apart from most of my fellow-students. But there were in those days -- the 1930s -- no formal programs specifically for intellectually fortunate children. Some might argue, therefore, that since I have obviously done well as regards my professional activities without the benefit of involvement with a gifted children program, it follows that other bright youngsters also need no special encouragement.

No, it does not so follow at all. While it is true that there were no programs by which I could benefit, there were, in fact, two individual teachers who gave me the sort of special attention and encouragement that often proves to be so decisive. One was a Catholic nun, Sister Mary Saraphia, at the St. Thomas The Apostle School in Chicago's Hyde Park neighborhood. Having become aware of my ability to write, she made me the editor of a little schoolroom newspaper, supplied me with books, and in every possible way encouraged me to exercise my gift. Years later, in gratitude, I dedicated one of my early books to her.

The second teacher to whom I will always be grateful was Marguerite Byrne, who taught English at Hyde Park High. She encouraged me to enter an essay contest, in which I won a prize; made me the poetry editor of the school magazine; carefully graded my essays and test papers; and in every possible way made me aware that there was something special about my ability to communicate coherently.

These two women, then, provided the very sort of encouragement and attention that at least a few fortunate children today can get from organized programs. It might be counter argued that there will always be certain teachers so sensitive and well-qualified, ever on the lookout for students who can profit by special attention. Indeed there will, but today the problems of our schools are so notoriously difficult that, even if a few such teachers exist, their tender concerns have little opportunity to be exercised given that so much of their energy is devoted simply to keeping the peace in their classrooms.

Having done a bit of teaching myself, I know that it is a simple matter to quickly identify the brightest students in a class. School principals should cooperate with teachers in this connection so that extracurricular programs of some sort can be developed, not over the dead bodies of administrators but with their full encouragement.

Obviously there will be subdivision. Some children, for example, may have a remarkable gift for music but possess intelligence that is only in the normal category.

AN EFFECTIVE WAY FOR ENCOURAGING GIFTED CHILDREN TO THINK

Next, I refer to a teaching gimmick I recently employed, with what I perceive as success, in communicating with two of my nine grandchildren, Bobby (6) and Bradley (8), chosen simply because they live near me, whereas the rest of my descendants are scattered about the country.

As all teachers and parents know, it is difficult to get children to concentrate on almost anything for long periods of time. But just a few nights ago these two little fellows spent about an hour and twenty minutes eagerly participating in an experiment that occurred to me on the spot.

I pointed out to them that because they lived in a comfortable home and were lucky enough to have a father who was well-paid for his professional services, they took for granted a good many things that the majority of the world's children didn't have at all. At that point my purpose was simply to make them appreciate the scores of objects that are a part of their daily environment. But then I said, "Also you'll find that you'll be much more interested in things -- all sorts of things -- if you play a little mental game about them." At the mention of the word game their eyes lighted up. "What's the game?" Bradley said.

"Just pretend," I said, "that you personally have been asked to make one of the objects that you see all the time, as distinguished from just going to a store and buying it."

There was an antique Chinese ceramic food dish on the table next to us as I spoke. "Look at this particular object," I said, picking it up. "Now let's suppose that somebody asks you to make one of these. Do you think you could?"

"I don't think so," Bradley said.

"That's an acceptable answer," I said. "But now let's add another factor to the equation." (Yes, I use such adult language with my grandchildren, as I earlier did with my four sons when they were growing up. How else are they to develop a vocabulary if grownups weed out the kinds of terms they employ in communicating with each other?) "Let's pretend that I offer you a thousand dollars if you can make one of these. Now would you be interested?"

"Sure," they both said.

"Okay, then let's get started. Tell me how you might make one of these things. But before you answer, study this one. Look at both the top and the bottom of it. Notice the various colors that some artist has painted on the flowers and other decorations. Now, what do you suppose the person started with in making this dish?" Their faces were blank.

"Let's try what they call the process of elimination," I said, taking a moment to explain what the phrase meant. "For example, would you make one of these dishes out of peanut butter?" They both giggled.

"Alright, would you make it of cottage cheese or bubble-gum?" They giggled again.

"Since it obviously wouldn't make sense to try to make a dish out of anything of that sort, or hundreds of other things we might mention, what do you think you could use to make a dish?"

"Some kind of clay?" Bradley asked.

"Exactly," I said.

For the next 15 minutes or so we discussed what sort of tools might be used to draw pictures on the clay, what paints we might use to add color. Eventually we went over the same kind of ground, referring to a small, silver-trimmed, wooden box, an Oriental lamp-base, and then, in the next room, some sculptured busts. When they gave bright or at least reasonable answers to my questions, I complimented them lavishly. When they gave not-so-bright answers, I gently explained why such thoughts weren't on-target. I explained to them, as we went along, that I wasn't giving them a test, that I wasn't putting to them the sorts of questions that had only one right answer. I told them that the whole point of our conversation was to have fun by exercising their minds and brains. I told them that at times even a wrong answer can be helpful because if we can be made to understand why the answer was wrong we will then tend to think more relevantly and creatively about the question at hand.

No doubt it would have been technically possible to teach the same lesson by simply doing all the talking myself, but of course the children would have squirmed and wanted to get away after just a few minutes of that. By making my points chiefly by the use of questions, I was, obviously, teaching the children not what to think, but how to think, as the saying goes.

My oldest son, Dr. Steve Allen, is a family physician who lives and practices in New York state. But he also spends a good deal of his time lecturing, in various parts of the country, on stress reduction, something he does with great good humor and marked success. In teaching his sometimes up-tight audiences to relax and have fun he gives them a bit of instruction on how to juggle colorful silk scarves. One of the basic moves, he explains, is "the Guilt-Free Drop," the point being that obviously anyone starting to juggle will spend most of his time dropping the objects he is trying to toss about, and that it is therefore necessary to get rid of self-critical reactions to such temporary clumsiness. In some of my own teaching, I stress the importance of guilt-free errors. Errors must, needless to say, be identified as such, but this can be done in a way that does not dampen the child's enthusiasm but rather encourages his freedom to speculate. I sometimes explain, in such connections, that although Thomas Edison invented the electric light, he was able to do so because he had made a long list of earlier experiments that failed. I say, "I don't know the exact number, but Mr. Edison might have made about 50 mistakes until he finally arrived at the correct answer. But I'm sure he didn't berate himself or get discouraged by all those mistakes. He was wise enough to learn from them, and often we don't know quite what we should do, which means that it's extremely helpful to learn what not to do, or what answer not to accept."

My point here is certainly not to advise professional educators, who know far more than I about methods of stimulating the thinking and creativity of bright boys and girls. But I would hope that nonspecialists reading this article will see, from the modest example given above, what sorts of educational approaches work particularly well with children whose minds are unconsciously waiting to be exercised.

AN EFFECTIVE METHOD FOR ENCOURAGING GIFTED CHILDREN TO ACCUMULATE, CLASSIFY AND USE INFORMATION

Back in the 1950s I stumbled over a method of information-gathering that has been wonderfully useful ever since. The discovery grew out of my sense of outrage at the degree to which Organized Crime -- chiefly Mafia-related -- controlled the city of New York. Working with the New York City Anti-Crime Committee, I prepared a two-hour television documentary on the subject, during the process of which I was granted access to the committee's files. At that point I simply began to develop my own, which at first consisted of copies of material already gathered by the committee. At the first stage all the items, chiefly articles on the public record, related to Organized Crime in a general sense. The papers were gathered together in black, 3-ringed leatherette binders, filed both alphabetically and chronologically. After a few years this large category began to be subdivided into separate areas in which organized gangsters were operative. There were entries such as the Teamsters Union, the New York and New Jersey waterfront unions, the recording industry (including jukeboxes), professional boxing, the garment industry, narcotics, gambling, etc. Eventually the boundaries of these categories were passed so that at present the library, which now consists of well over a thousand separate volumes, came to cover almost every significant social issue of our time. Among the categories, for example, are: abortion, birth control, communism, capitalism, religion, prisons, poverty, and hunger, to name only a few. I see no reason why children cannot be taught to collect articles from newspapers and magazines that relate to subject matter they're already interested in, whether that might be electricity, football, space travel, gun control, and other urgent issues. They can be encouraged not only to read the materials they accumulate, but to underline significant passages, even to make neat marginal notes. Obviously such a learning method can easily be adapted to individual circumstances and settings, but I assume that if it has been so invaluable to me it must be of at least some use to others.

CONCLUSION

Ten years ago, in an article for The New York Times, I suggested that it would be a very peculiar state of affairs if our society took the position that children who are found to possess remarkable musical aptitude were, nevertheless, not to be given any special consideration or instruction. And it would be unthinkable if we argued that young people blessed with superior athletic ability should not be encouraged to develop their gifts.

But when it comes to students who are only intellectually superior, we are remarkably indifferent. There are, to be sure, individuals concerned with the special needs of gifted children, and some of their responses are organizational. But there is by no means a consensus concerning the wisdom of providing special nurture for those who, partly by the mysterious roll of the genetic dice, are intellectually superior.

Does this mean we care more about athletic than intellectual achievement? I'm afraid it does, insofar as we can be judged by our actions. But is there any way that we could be made to even begin to imagine that the mind and spirit are more important than the biceps or the hamstring? The trick might be turned if we could plug this particular computer program, so to speak, into the national ego-circuits. There would certainly be justification for such a connection, because in the long, historic run it is a damned sight more important, and dangerous, that we are mentally inferior than that, in some instances, we are physically inferior.

To approach the problem from another angle, we must all somehow be made aware -- as quickly as possible -- that as of the last 25 years or so, the American people have been getting demonstrably dumber. We were shocked, some years ago, to be told that "Johnny can't read." Indeed he can't, at least not as well as he should, nor can he write, do simple arithmetic, or even think very well.

In the face of such negative factors, there is a depressing stupidity in our refusal to offer proper encouragement and nurture to the small percentage of our children who are performing well. A number of super-bright young people do somehow contrive to get a reasonably good education and to enjoy professional success. But a good many others of equal competence are falling through the tattered net of public and official ignorance and neglect. That we cannot afford.

Although there is an urgent need for active programs that respond to the needs of gifted children, it does not follow that all such efforts will be properly conducted. Well-intentioned parents can be counterproductive if what they perceive as special attention is construed by the child -- perhaps accurately -- as a high-pressure message saying, "You'd better succeed, or else."

Concerned parents, therefore, must assess their own motives. Otherwise they may become as destructive as the notorious stage-mothers who, in the theatrical context, sometimes do permanent damage to their children's hearts and souls because of the intense critical pressure they put on them to succeed as actors or performers.

The most successful programs of encouragement for superior children strike a reasonable balance between special instruction on the one hand, and warm, friendly encouragement on the other. I recall from my own somewhat chaotic educational experience that if I liked a teacher, I tended to do well in her class. If the teacher was cold, insulting, sarcastic and/or impatient, I learned little.

This issue, of course, exists within the context of a larger and unresolved philosophical debate concerning suitable relationships between what might loosely be described as the haves and have-nots of society.

As regards superior intelligence, the issue would at least be simpler to understand if all the strikingly bright boys and girls lived on the "right side of the tracks," and all the below-average children on the other side. God help the unbright ones if that were the case, because perhaps no society in history has morally distinguished itself by its treatment of the poor or otherwise disadvantaged. But intelligence may spring up in a rural shack or a slum apartment.

The classic example is that of Charles Kettering, whose achievements as an inventor are rivaled only by those of Thomas Edison. Many of Kettering's remarkable discoveries and developments were related to the automobile industry. His incredible gifts might have been easily overlooked, given that as a child he attended a very small rural school. Fortunately, two young teachers noticed his aptitude and gave him special attention. Had they not done so, the development of nothing less than the American economy itself might have been delayed or handicapped.

If, as I assume, the primary factors of giftedness are physical and genetic, it then becomes a matter of the most crucial importance that the unusually bright ones in poor neighborhoods be identified as early as possible. Otherwise the initial natural gifts are wasted, swamped by the harsh realities of being brought up in conditions characterized by poverty, crime, inadequate diet, parents who may be either absent, tragically ignorant and uneducated, and socially unstable, if not criminal. It is, then, all the more necessary that efforts be made to identify gifted children in the below-the-poverty-line segment of our society. It is no exaggeration to say that if it were the case that an appreciable and ever-growing segment of our society were, in fact, becoming less well educated, less prepared for life in the marketplace, less socially responsible generally, this would be a grave threat to the stability of our nation. It is painfully clear in the rising statistics concerning violent crime that the poor will not forever supinely accept their fate. If they cannot legally secure the benefits of life in the world's richest nation, some of them will simply break and enter, grab and run, even assault and kill to get what they want. The problems of our society do not exist as a series of more-or-less separate issues. They are all part of a large, ugly, interconnected machine. It is the height of social stupidity for the white, affluent descendants of former peasants and laborers to say, "If they want something, let them work for it," at a time when there are no jobs for 10 percent of America's workers and when, moreover, our poverty-stricken neighborhoods are producing millions of young people largely unqualified to accept such low-paying jobs as might otherwise be available to them. Education is obviously important as a means of uplifting the human mind and spirit. But it also has a profound importance in the context of social and economic considerations. It would be an exaggeration to say that a large, continued, and strikingly successful program of identifying all gifted children and offering them proper nurture, could in itself resolve our larger problems. But not doing so will certainly make these problems more severe.

RETURN TO GIFTED EDUCATION PRESS QUARTERLY -- WINTER 2001 ISSUE

RETURN TO GIFTED EDUCATION PRESS HOMEPAGE

COMMENTS, FEEDBACK, INPUT:

E-Mail Address: mfisher345@comcast.net