The Guardian’s terrible article on giftedness

28 Jul

Let me stipulate, before I begin, that I believe that most students could substantially improve their academic performance. But I cannot accept the assertion implied in a recent Guardian headline: “Why there’s no such thing as a gifted child.”

What evidence does the Guardian supply for its assertion? It’s almost entirely anecdotal. For example, we are told that:

Most Nobel laureates were unexceptional in childhood. Einstein was slow to talk and was dubbed the dopey one by the family maid. He failed the general part of the entry test to Zurich Polytechnic – though they let him in because of high physics and maths scores. He struggled at work initially, failing to get academic post and being passed over for promotion at the Swiss Patent Office because he wasn’t good enough at machine technology. But he kept plugging away and eventually rewrote the laws of Newtonian mechanics with his theory of relativity.

There is a lot wrong with this account. The story of a family maid years after Einstein was a grown and famous man is hardly strong evidence. Just how slow was he to talk? Doesn’t “high physics and maths scores” count as evidence of giftedness? As a child Einstein taught himself calculus and his employment problems were largely due to Antisemitism.

Te article also says:

Lewis Terman, a pioneering American educational psychologist, set up a study in 1921 following 1,470 Californians, who excelled in the newly available IQ tests, throughout their lives. None ended up as the great thinkers of their age that Terman expected they would. But he did miss two future Nobel prize winners – Luis Alvarez and William Shockley, both physicists – whom he dismissed from the study as their test scores were not high enough.

I didn’t know about Luis Alvarez, but I did know the story about Shockley. Terman study was a longitudinal study of gifted children who had an IQ above a defined cut score. Shockley’s IQ was high but just not high enough to be in Terman group. The students identified by Terman did well in life, having above average academic and professional achievement. It might be worth pointing out that Nobel prizes are not that common and while IQ does a good job of capturing highly valued cognitive skills it may not be a good measure of creativity.

Later the article makes this astonishing admission:

While the jury is out on giftedness being innate and other factors potentially making the difference, what is certain is that the behaviours associated with high levels of performance are replicable and most can be taught – even traits such as curiosity.

Wait a second, the article is supposed to be arguing that giftedness doesn’t exist, but the author not only concedes that it exists, but also that some aspects could be innate. There certainly are “behaviours associated with high levels of performance” but we do not know to what extent these behaviors can be taught.



3 Responses to “The Guardian’s terrible article on giftedness”

  1. Kathy H July 28, 2017 at 8:13 pm #

    Obviously this article is filled with bias. “Giftedness” is so subjective to interpretations. My child was in the “gifted” class in 5th and 6th grades. I was shocked to discover when she was moving onto junior high that she was not “gifted”. “Non-gifted” children who excelled were grouped with “gifted” children in order to obtain a certain class size. Although achieving all A’s she would be thrown into the general population. She missed the “gifted” category by one percentage point on a standardized test. How ridiculous! Intelligence does not equal achievement.

    • jecgenovese July 29, 2017 at 12:42 pm #

      Do you know which standardized test they used?

  2. Kathy H July 29, 2017 at 1:15 pm #

    I actually found her test for both the 6th and 7th grade. It was the Iowa Tests of Basic Skills for 6th grade and the Iowa Test of Basic Skills and Cognitive Abilities Test in the 7th grade. She had to have a core total grade equivalent of 96 percentile in the 6th grade to be included in the Westlake Schools Gifted program for 7th grade. Her core total score was 94 percentile. So it was actually two percentile points. Nothing else was taken into consideration except that test. I also found her 7th grade Iowa Test of Basic Skill and Cognitive Abilities Test. On that, her core total score was in the 96 percentile. So, while she was not “gifted” in the 6th grade, she would have been “gifted” in the 7th grade. But there was not option to be in the gifted program. This just shows you the stupidity of bureaucracy. I could have fought this at the time, but I had a child who was afraid to go into the gifted program in junior high once they had labeled her “non-gifted”.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: