Nurturing the innovative minority.

We know that gifted students differ from the average students. But, in what way? In what dimensions? Is the nature of giftedness quantitatively different from the average student or qualitatively different? Do gifted students have something uniquely different to offer in intellectual performance from the average student? We can well ask ourselves what difference the distinction of quantitative versus qualitative makes. Is this a question merely for academics and philosophers or do important decisions regarding their education rest on which of these alternatives you believe?

There are those who argue that the differences are a matter merely of quantitative degree reference studies of IQ scores, or SAT scores, which are clearly quantitative scales, and point out that gifted students appear at the top level of these scales and are thus part of a quantitative distribution. They merely have more cognitive ability than the ordinary student. But this argument, by itself, is not convincing. Consider the measurement of the temperature of water. That is clearly on a quantitative scale of Fahrenheit but what happens when the temperature exceeds 212[degrees]F? Now it is steam, and it becomes ice if we go in the other direction beyond 32[degrees]F. Even though these points are on a quantitative scale, the character of the substance being measured dramatically changes at the ends of the distribution.

So, if you reach a certain point, say an IQ of 135 or an SAT section score of 700, does the character of the student's intellect change and does our responsibility in terms of the education for such students also change? That is why it matters how you think of this quantitative versus qualitative discussion. If you are strictly quantitative in approach you would merely give the students more lessons, faster. Perhaps accelerate him or her through the system faster. Why give any different curriculum or present the curriculum in a different way to these students? Won't the average student be able to do what the gifted student now does, just a few years later, because he/she is not such a rapid learner?

Well, no! At these higher levels of intellect, the student with an abundance of content knowledge can gain control of her or his own mental processes and put them to work in problem solving and problem finding far beyond that of the average student or adult in content complexity and innovation. The executive function is that ability of the individual to (1) manage his or her own cognitive processes to focus attention or perceptions on various events in the environment, (2) reconstruct his or her thinking about facts already available (acts that we sometimes refer to as creativity), and (3) present this information to others effectively. The executive function, not measured by IQ tests, is what sets apart many gifted students from their age peers.

Special educators have conceptualized a teaching process known as Universal Design for Learning (UDL) that can allow students with disabilities who have trouble learning the standard curriculum to have content presented in a modified fashion, perhaps with visual images to complement the usual verbal presentations. If we believe that at the upper regions of the intellect, qualitative differences appear, then we should be prepared to present curricula in a modified way to gifted students, as well. We can use more complex images and multidimensional information to challenge the capabilities of such gifted students. We can even establish special schools such as Julliard for the gifted in music, or schools for science and math for highly talented secondary students. We can extend existing curriculum to include such items as the new string theory in physics that no science teacher in his/her right mind would present to average ability students.

Those average students can be proud of their ability to master the Mendelian rules of genetics, but those gifted students who can manipulate DNA sequences can be of great import to the society as a whole! We have long recognized that major breakthroughs in science and art have come from a relatively few individuals. Is this an elitist point of view? I guess it is, and the only excuse for holding such a proposition is that it is the truth. Call them, these few special minds, the innovative minority or whatever. There are, in fact, two levels of innovative minority, those who have the creative idea and a larger group who see the full import of the idea and apply it to their own area.

The one thing we do know is that we can, through education, increase the number of persons in this innovative minority and increase the efficiency of those in this group. Every field from business to the arts to science can profit from the stimulation of this innovative minority, but that stimulation will not take place as long as we act as though we believe the quantitative approach and keep these talented youths in lock step with the general education classroom and curriculum.

What is needed is new content curriculum design to challenge these talented youths, new approaches such as problem based learning to give them the chance to think independently, and the opportunity for them to rub elbows with the best thinkers of their peers and the most talented adults willing to participate. They should be problem finding as well as problem solving. Remember the water analogy. Our job is to produce some steam that energizes and drives the America of the 21st Century.