Gifted and talented students
For the purposes of this book, from this point forward, we will refer to this population of students as question 4 students. Note that we do not endorse only considering students identified as gifted as question 4 students; this is not a “gifted book.” This is a question 4 book that addresses high ability and potential, which is flexible and evolves based on what is being taught. We authors have seen it’s possible that one student might be considered a “question 4 student” one week but not necessarily the next. For example, a student who is not under the “gifted and talented” label but shows high potential during a pretest would benefit from the instructional components we advocate in this book.
Teams often report to us that the four questions are addressed in order, one through four, with the last question typically skipped due to time, priorities, or lack of know-how by the collaborative team members. When this happens, question 4 students’ needs are not being met. We contend that in order to truly consider the fourth question, teams need to address how they plan to extend learning for question 4 students much earlier in the process. If teams wait until a formative assessment is administered to make this determination, it is too late, as instruction has already occurred. This conversation needs to take place at the beginning of a unit to ensure that teams take the needs of all students into account.
The Challenge With Responding to Question 4
Because question 4 very specifically uses the word extend, as we begin a discussion about question 4, we feel it is important to define the difference between enrichment and extension. We have seen these terms commonly used interchangeably when discussions emerge about question 4 and what to do for question 4 students.
Enrichment is a term used to describe “the subjects traditionally taught by specials or electives teachers (such as music, art, drama, applied technology, and physical education) and the activities often used to enrich learning (for example, field trips and assemblies)” (AllThingsPLC, 2016). Extension, by comparison, is:
when students are stretched beyond essential grade-level curriculum or levels of proficiency. Extension can be achieved by asking students to demonstrate mastery of essential standards at a level beyond what is deemed grade-level proficient, providing students access to more of the required grade-level curriculum that is deemed nonessential, or providing students access to curriculum above their current grade level. (AllThingsPLC, 2016)
The strategies described in this book reflect extension. We are providing tools for teachers to extend and stretch students’ learning, particularly for question 4 students. From our experience, question 4 is a question that the classroom staff rarely answer. Teachers and educators in general tend to work through questions 1–3 chronologically, stop at question 3, and not move forward to answer question 4. Many teachers and educators focus on the struggling students (who are the subject of question 3) and their deficits and work toward progress on district, state, or national tests. We often hear educators call students who are just below proficient bubble students and spend time and energy moving them to proficiency. This type of work and conversation often trumps the rich conversations that would otherwise take place around question 4.
However, we can’t just ignore question 4 students. It is easy to assume that these learners will be fine and will adapt to whatever is given to them. This isn’t the case. Experts share that students, when not challenged, will (1) get by and try not to bring attention to themselves (and not be intellectually challenged), (2) zone out and find a different activity to engage their brain (such as doodling), or (3) act out with behaviors that draw negative attention to them (Long, 2013).
Many might look at these three items and think that as long as the result isn’t the third option, things will be fine. We are really short-changing students with this mentality, as studies show the great things that are possible when educators intentionally design instruction to respond to these students. Researchers at Vanderbilt University have been working on a fifty-year longitudinal study of students identified as gifted from 1972 to 1997 (Park, Lubinski, & Benbow, 2013). They have been conducting follow-up studies with the former students at various intervals to learn about how gifted education practices have impacted their lives. Gregory Park, David Lubinski, and Camilla P. Benbow (2013) find that the students in their cohorts have gone on to be top scholars, scientists and inventors, and leaders. One key finding from this study shows that pushing gifted learners by allowing grade skipping resulted in a 60 percent higher likelihood that the students would go on to earn doctorates or patents and be more than twice as likely to get a PhD in a STEM field (Park et al., 2013). The researchers also point out that while this does not happen in most schools, even modest interventions have a demonstrable effect (Clynes, 2016).
Park, Lubinski, and Benbow’s (2013) study shows that question 4 students benefit when we determine how to meet their needs and implement the identified interventions. The problem is that school leaders and teachers in some PLCs often skip this question in their team meetings. Consider the following statements. Does this sound familiar?
If we are going to work together and be able to talk about what we are doing instructionally, it stands to reason that we should be on the same page with at least the standards that we will be teaching. From there, it also makes sense that, as long as we are teaching the same curriculum, we should have common assessments. For one, it will help us work smarter by not needing both of us to make separate tests if we are teaching the same content. This leads to a guaranteed viable curriculum. And, as long as we are giving the same tests, let’s see how our kids are doing. This then generates wonderful discussion about what we see in all of our students’ collective work. I could ask you great questions about how you are getting your results and vice versa. Then, let’s take a look at what students struggled the most and have a conversation about how we can get them up to at least minimal proficiency.
For many teams, this is where the process stops. We authors wanted to know why, so we asked participants at a PLC Institute, “Why is it so hard to get to critical question 4 in your collaborative team?” The answers ranged from time to priorities to a lack of resources explaining what to do with question 4. All three of these themes are understandable and predictable in many ways.
Time
In panel discussions at PLC Institutes, Rick and Becky DuFour have shared that a strong team needs a minimum of forty-five to sixty minutes of meeting time per week. The school’s culture must support this need and keep this time sacred. This time goes by quickly, as it takes a great deal of time to have conversations around essential learnings, to develop common assessments, and to analyze data. Teachers report that after doing these items, they don’t have time to talk about anything else. Elementary teachers have shared with us that if they had enough time after completing this process with one subject area, they would move on to the next. If reading is the focus, for example, any “extra” time would go toward conversations about mathematics. Use the reproducible “Collaborative Team Discussion: PLC Critical Questions” (page 16) to reflect on your team’s current reality of time usage surrounding the critical questions and support collaborative conversations and learning in your collaborative team.
Unfortunately, this book will not be able to provide more time to teachers. Although we sure wish that it could, we have yet to work in a school or district where teachers have an amount of planning time that enables them to not have to stay late, work at home, or come back to school later in the evening to get their work done. We know this because we have also done it as teachers and administrators our entire work life. In order to address question 4 without the gift of additional time, we have to make the time during our collaborative meetings, even if it is a short amount. I saw one team make a team norm for the year of spending at least ten minutes per meeting on the needs of question 4 students. This small amount adds up over the course of the year. By sticking to this norm and acting on its growing list of ideas, before this team knew
