Gifted Children

Distinctions

Gifted or Talented?

This particular distinction may be more prevalent in the U.S. since I haven't noticed it being used here in Australia. However, as I discuss further below, the academic vs non-academic distinction is still very important, even if not specifically labelled "gifted" vs "talented".

The dear old NSW Department of Education defines talented students as "those with the potential to exhibit superior performance in one area of endeavour" (in contrast to the range of different areas for the "gifted"). This difference resembles the above in that it is a non-too-subtle put-down of one class of gifted children. It is very difficult to apply: Mozart was a good performer as well as composer of music - does that make him multi-talented (and therefore gifted), or was he "only" talented, not "really" gifted?

The most important use of the distinction between "gifted" and "talented" emerges in the work of Françoys Gagné. As I understand it, children's gifts are developed to become talents. The greatest factor in that process is the structured educational influences usually found in schools, universities, colleges, and other recognised educational institutions. However, other environmental influences (home, culture, etc) also play their part.

So, it seems to me that Gagné's gifted vs talented distinction is similar to "undeveloped potential" vs "a coming to fruition". What worries me most about this is that it looks like a superfluous label has been picked up and made (excellent) use of when, really, it might have been better to start afresh with new unambiguous labels. That is, I think there is value in the concept underlying his theory, but the use of these labels is unfortunate.

Moderate or High or Extreme?

Gagné comes up again here. (Again) as I understand it, the labels "gifted" or "talented" can apply to the top 15% of children engaged in a specific area. So you're a talented violinist if you have a well-developed gift that places you among the top 15% of violin-playing children in your age group. Got that? Since schooling is compulsory (here in Australia and in most similar countries), it follows that you don't have to worry too much about fine distinctions when it comes to academic gifts/talents: the target population is pretty much the whole population of kids in that age group.

As for degree, the Gagné school uses the following terms:

Moderately Gifted/Talented - top 5%

Highly Gifted/Talented - top 1%

Extremely Gifted/Talented - top 0.1% (one in a thousand)

And there's a problem there: you lose discrimination if you go down that path. Winner discusses this as her 8th Myth: All Children are Gifted. This may be true if you allow a fuzzy enough definition of "gifted", but the label and its underlying concept do have a real use in specific contexts. Extremely gifted children (also known as prodigies) do have special needs that should be addressed with the same professionalism accorded to retarded or learning disabled children.

If you've bothered to read as far as this, then you've probably got a gifted child, one who is at least moderately gifted. Where a child is clearly highly or extremely gifted (and especially if talented in the Gagné sense) then the "gifted" label is probably not too contentious. However, if your child is probably "only" moderately gifted, then it's still worth continuing to investigate this minefield: the "moderate" label may be an underestimate and many services aimed at "gifted" children are, in fact, better suited to the "moderate" sector which is, after all, the biggest one ... isn't it?

Academic or Otherwise?

However, in my own experience, I've found this distinction a most contentious and difficult one. It's very important, I think, to keep in mind that many well-accepted geniuses, but most notably Einstein, hated school and performed there very unevenly. He was passionate about physics, but was a self-confessed poor mathematician. Academic giftedness is often rated on verbal and mathematical skills (the subjects English and Maths) while neglecting skills with an equally important place in any university, such as are embodied in theoretical physics, computer engineering, evolutionary biology, etc. In other words, the other subjects.

In fact, the two subjects most vulnerable to rating discrimination are science and information technology (both too "modern" to have traditions dating back to the Latin origins of most great Western institutions of learning). O.K. you guessed it (or had a look at Theo's side of this web site). My son's strengths are in these subject areas while he doesn't do all that well at school generally. He's a mini Einstein. Sometimes, the best bet is to find a famous genius with some features similar to your child's. Then say the child is like so-and-so. It's a richer sort of labelling system and I'm sure the spirits of those departed souls would be only too pleased to be compared to young souls alive today.

In fact, when I tried this with my own son, I came up with a good model in Richard Feynman (rather than Einstein) and, if you want to see more details on this as a case example, then visit my page on Feynman.

Which kind of intelligence?

Most discussions of gifted children lead, sooner or later, to these issues of intelligence. They are, I think, especially relevant when trying to determine whether/how much your child is gifted. So, for more on this, I invite you to move on to the section called Determinations.