International Giftedness

"Singapore’s students do brilliantly in math and science tests. American kids test much worse but do better in the real world. Why?"

This quote came from a Newsweek article written by columnist Fareed Zakaria earlier this year in which she interviewed Tharman Shanmugaratnam, minister of Education of Singapore, the country that is No. 1 in the global sciences and math rankings for schoolchildren. The minister said that “America has a culture of learning that challenges conventional wisdom, even if it means challenging authority. These are the areas where Singapore must learn from America.” But he went on to say, according to Zakaria, that the U.S. educational system “as a whole has failed.” “Unless you are middle class or richer, you get an education that is truly second-rate by any standard. Apart from issues of fairness, what this means is that you never really access the talent of poor, bright kids. In Singapore, we get the poor kid who is very bright and very hungry, and that’s crucial to our success.”

With so much discussion about “flat worlds” and global competition these days, we asked three gifted experts with extensive international gifted experience, Joyce Van Tassel-Baska, Richard Lange and Bonnie Cramond, to talk about international gifted programs. (Biographies of these three appear at the end of this web page.)

What do other countries do to serve gifted students?

Richard Lange: Services for gifted students in other countries are as wide and varied as they are from region to region and state to state in our own country. Gifted education is usually not mandated by federal or national laws. This doesn’t mean that fine programs for the gifted do not exist. Many countries have a long history of funding and supporting magnet schools for very bright children. I have visited several gifted magnet schools in Taipei, Taiwan, and seen students involved in very advanced math and reading programs. Students take rigorous placements tests in order to attend the gifted school that has a heavy emphasis on advanced math, science classes with large amounts of laboratory experiments and English lessons at a very early age. In many of the countries I have toured, I did not see much evidence of any kind of “pull out” or enrichment programs in the regular schools.

Since the funding structure in most countries is centralized and comes from the top down, parental input is almost non-existent when expressing the needs of gifted students. Discretionary use of school funds is not decided at the local level. This makes it more challenging for parents and teachers who wish to address school officials about providing services for gifted programs. Local parent groups have, therefore, created many privately funded, after-school enrichment programs for gifted students.

Bonnie Cramond: Most other countries that I have observed serve gifted students by having a more challenging general curriculum, using some form of grouping for instruction, and acceleration. I believe this is why international reports show that other countries outperform the U.S. in math and science especially. The U.S., in particular with the “No Child Left Behind” legislation, is putting emphasis on minimum standards. But countries such as China, Taiwan, Korea, and Russia, for example, are recognizing that there is a connection between the education of their ablest learners and the future well-being of their country.

Joyce VanTassel-Baska: Many developed countries in the Asia-Pacific region such as Australia, Singapore, and Korea provide special classes and specialized schools for their advanced students. Students are identified and placed in accelerated classes that focus on advanced content and curriculum differentiation. In Singapore, for example, selected students are placed in specialized schools for instruction in all core academic areas as well as affective education. At the secondary levels, research, mentorships, and service-learning opportunities are available modes of service. In Europe, some specialized schools exist and are augmented by in-class differentiation. In England, for example, students are heterogeneously grouped at the primary level, yet they receive differentiated services in the form of special units of study, special projects, and differentiated task development.

What are other countries’ beliefs about giftedness and gifted education?

Cramond: I don’t think other countries are apologetic about providing different curricular experiences for students based upon the students’ achievements. Part of that may come from their very different ideas about giftedness. For example, Asians put much more emphasis on effort and less on natural ability. So, they believe that the students who do best are those who work the hardest. Therefore, there is nothing unfair about providing a more challenging curriculum to them.

VanTassel-Baska: The beliefs among countries vary. For example, Australia focuses heavily on acceleration and grouping for gifted children. They believe that pacing and advanced coursework for their brightest students provide the best options for student gain and the cultivation of potential. England, on the other hand, believes that gifted education should impact all classroom practices, and teachers must be well-equipped with the pedagogy and content-knowledge necessary for working with gifted students. Korea considers gifted students to be the future of their nation, especially those who pursue education in the sciences and mathematics. Therefore, optimal talent development in science is the central focus for those students with advanced intellect and scientific precocity.

Lange: I have discovered throughout my travels that other countries have similar views as we do about giftedness. All seem to agree that about 2 to 3 percent of the school population shows signs of giftedness. And, just like in the U.S., the discussion then turns quickly to, “What do we do with the gifted few?”

What I find interesting is the different beliefs between developing nations and industrialized countries. I once spoke with the minister of education from Nigeria, who informed me he was quite proud of the fact that their magnet school in the capitol city of Lagos took ­students from all over the country. It was based on British-style education with curriculum taken from magnet schools in London. He told me how this gifted school was critical for national security and he made no apologies to the fact that some students were able to attend and others not. Yet, in other countries like the United Kingdom, ­legislation at the national level — which states that all school districts will secure the services of professionally trained gifted education coordinators to serve as advisors to provide input on how to best meets the needs of gifted students — has just become law.

How are these beliefs reflected in programs and practices?

VanTassel-Baska: Many countries define “gifted” as the top 1% intellectually. Programs are designed based on those beliefs. Programs emphasize and specialize in mathematic and scientific constructs and likewise, target those students with abilities in math and science.

Organizationally, grouping structures and acceleration are the major pathways for gifted students to advance at their own pace in selected subject areas of national interest. For these countries, systemic structures originate from the national government and systems and policies are in place for students to master the curriculum and advance at their own rate. Likewise, university based programs that exist emphasize understanding the nature and needs of gifted children and the rationale and strategies essential to serving them as part of a national investment.

Lange: Only about 25% of the students attend academically oriented high schools across Asia and Europe. These academically based schools consist mainly of classes that are similar to our Advanced Placement courses. The high school “diploma” is considered to be the equivalent of a sophomore level at a U.S. university. Government and education officials believe that these faster-paced public schools with strict entrance requirements fulfill the needs of gifted students. Students may also select which high school they may wish to attend.

Many high schools have a slightly different academic or fine arts focus which lets parents send their child to a school that matches the child’s talents. The other 75% may attend trade and vocational schools — which are just as demanding. Mercedes and BMW management often hire top engineers that come from Germany’s vocational schools.

The grade schools, however, are “neighborhood schools where all children regardless of ability, attend. Extensive testing is conducted at about age 10 or 11 to determine which kind of secondary school the child will attend.

Cramond: There is very tough competition to get into the best schools and attend the best universities. There is a definite ranking system both among the schools and within the schools. Education is very competitive, and there is a great deal of emphasis on working hard and studying.

How do these beliefs and practices differ from those in the U.S.?

Lange: One major difference is the training of school personnel who provide services for the gifted. In most countries, it is a school (or private) psychologist who provides services for the gifted students and their parents. In the U.S., it’s typically a gifted education coordinator who is a certified classroom teacher and works with the gifted students.

Why the difference?

Lange: I think it is rooted in the fact that most foreign countries believe that their curriculum will provide for the needs of gifted students. Therefore, they work more with a child’s social and emotional needs with an understanding that the academic needs are met in the classroom. Many of the gifted conferences I have attended overseas often use case studies of highly intellectual gifted children and what a rough time these students have integrating in the schools from a social/emotional perspective. Americans also deal with social and emotional needs, but we tend to identify a larger number of students as gifted and concentrate on providing direct instruction and academically challenging activities. Social and emotional needs are often secondary concerns.

Cramond: In the U.S. there is much more variability in what is provided for gifted students and even how we identify them. There is not a national program like there is in some other countries. However, the U.S. population is much more diverse than in most other countries. So, we expend a great deal of effort attempting to identify fairly gifted students from various cultures that other countries do not have to expend. However, this is our challenge and also our strength; diversity has historically enabled survival of species and cultures.

On the other hand, there is a much more united emphasis on the value of education in many other countries. For example, I have been amazed at the degree of personal and financial sacrifice that parents in Korea are willing to make for their children’s education. One teacher told me about paying $30,000 for his two daughters to go England for three weeks to learn English. The respect for teachers and the money spent by the government on education also emphasize this value.

VanTassel-Baska: The U.S. is more eclectic and less targeted in the types of services provided to gifted students. Decision-making focuses on individualism, despite a societal need for talented citizens. The United States provides services in a variety of content areas such as language arts, mathematics, science, social studies, creativity, leadership, and the arts. There is less articulation among districts and states, however, regarding the types of services provided and which students should be identified and served. Services in the U.S. focus on inclusionary practices within the classroom instead of separating gifted students.

Organizationally this means that gifted students in the U.S. are less likely to progress at their own pace and pursue ­talent areas and interests with the needed intensity, acceleration, and curriculum rigor of other countries. Consequently, based on the egalitarian mindset in the U.S., which is currently more than in other countries, ability grouping and acceleration are not routine practices.

What can the U.S. learn from other countries about the practice of gifted education?

Cramond: We can learn that there is a difference between equal opportunity and treating everyone the same. We can learn to value all of our students as a national resource and realize that by developing their talents we empower them and our nation. We can learn to really value education and teach our children to value it. We can do as Sternberg said and put less emphasis on self-esteem and more on self-efficacy. We can do that by putting less emphasis on trying to make everyone feel good with grade inflation and more emphasis on teaching students the value of hard work and study. We can learn that by respecting teachers and teaching our children to respect them. We can learn that we are partners with the schools in educating children; education begins at home and continues at home.

However, I think that there are things that other countries can learn from us, too. One that I alluded to is the value of diversity. Even in cultures where there is little ethnic diversity, there are differences in talents, personalities, interests, etc. I think many other countries can learn to be more accepting and encouraging of individual differences.

Another thing that other countries can learn from us is how to incorporate creativity into the curriculum more. There is an intense interest in creativity in Asia as countries there see the connection between economic prosperity and the creativity of the populace. As noted in the introduction to this article, some countries recognize that they have done a very good job of teaching their students to think analytically, but they have not done as well at teaching them to think creatively. Therefore, there are efforts to bring creative teaching methods into their educational system.

However, the U.S. does not seem to be making similar efforts to bring more rigor into our classes. Even more frightening, with the current emphasis on minimum standards and basics, we are deemphasizing the creativity that has enabled us to be world leaders in patent filing and problem solving.

I think the U.S. and other countries have much to learn from each other. I see foreign teachers visiting our universities, observing our classrooms, and reading our texts to incorporate our best methods to teach the gifted. I don’t see an equally strong effort for us to learn from them, or even to keep the good things we have had.

Lange: We should consider creating more specialized magnet schools, similar to the Illinois Math & Science Academy, that are far more abundant in other countries and supported by the government. While we have excellent public high schools with highly qualified teachers and rigorous curriculum, there is a lack of consistency across the country. True, the U.S. is a very large and diverse country, but we need to take a closer look at other nations which are equally diverse and yet still provide a nation-wide standard and allow for some choice when selecting a school to attend. We could also learn more about providing career counseling services for gifted students such as offering apprenticeship programs which has a long history in European schools but still has not caught on in America. And finally, we should invite our international friends to visit our schools and create more dialogue about what is truly “Best Practice” for gifted students. This can only help all countries learn and grow together to make a better world for understanding today’s gifted students.

VanTassel-Baska: There are four critical lessons the U.S. could learn based on a synthesis of services provided for gifted students in other countries. 

1. Consider the issue of the intensity of services. The U.S. could learn how to better focus intense service options for gifted students that are accelerated, content-based, and focused on advanced levels of learning within a given domain. 
2. The seriousness and importance of the enterprise of gifted education must be acknowledged at federal, state, and local levels. Support from policymakers, an emphasis on higher-level learning, and a belief that gifted students need advanced learning opportunities in order for the country to continue to thrive are examples of such acknowledgment.
3. There needs to be tighter control in our implementation of gifted services including who receives services and how those services are delivered and articulated among and across grade levels, from primary school through university based programs. Too many times gifted student services in the U.S. are sporadic and lack the definition and focus of other countries as part of a national agenda. 
4. An insistence on quality personnel selection and preparation of teachers to teach gifted students is necessary. The incorporation of courses for undergraduates and graduates in university based programs that emphasize higher-level learning opportunities, acceleration options, grouping options, pre-assessment, and known models that are proven to be effective with gifted students must be emphasized in university based programs so teachers will incorporate higher-level learning opportunities for gifted students within their classrooms.  In other countries, teacher selection is more carefully done, often including only teachers who graduate in the top 20% of their undergraduate majors as candidates to work with the gifted, as is the case in Singapore.

Joyce VanTassel-Baska is The Jody and Layton Smith Professor of Education and Executive Director of the Center for Gifted Education at the College of William and Mary in Virginia where she has developed a graduate program and a research and development center in gifted education. Formerly she initiated and directed the Center for Talent Development at Northwestern University. She has also served as the state director of gifted programs for Illinois. She has consulted internationally in Australia, New Zealand, Hungary, Jordan, Singapore, and the United Arab Emirates.

Since 1980, Richard E. Lange has been the Coordinator of gifted education in Prospect Heights School District 23 in Illinois and is author of several journal articles on gifted education. He has served as the U.S. representative for the World Council of Gifted & Talented Children and the European Council of High Ability.

Bonnie Cramond, associate professor of gifted and creative education, University of Georgia, Athens, says she does not pretend to be an expert on education in other countries, or even in the U.S. “What I write about is from my over 30 years in education — as a general classroom teacher, teacher of the gifted, parent of two, and university professor/researcher. It also comes from my observations of education, discussions with educators, and cross-cultural research in many other countries. To date, I have visited 28 countries on five continents.” l