Gifted Education - Vietnam and international perspectives

It is my honor to be invited by Mary St George for joining   and I hope this is the great chance for sharing multiple and international views on gifted education topics. I would like to share here the paper which was an assignment in my current course at UNSW (named Current Issues in the Education of Intellectually Gifted Children).

 @@@ 

Introduction

Arguments are always the motivate forces for the further development of society. They are based on multi-approached perspectives, even contrasting points. Interestingly, as we are all common human-beings, there are similar views that come across from nations to nations, generations to generations, regardless of political, sociocultural and educational differences. In gifted and talented education, the debates between supporters of the notions of Equity and Excellence, Potential and Performance, and Natural Resource and Special Education are the main ongoing arguments internationally. This paper will review these contrasting views, through the chapter entitled “International Perspectives” (Gross, 2003) as well as other works in the field, to combine with Vietnam circumstances, for discussing whether “versus” philosophy could be translated to a “vis-à-vis” approach, for the benefit for all stakeholders in the gifted and talented education.

Hanoi-Amsterdam High-school,  one of leading gifted schools in Vietnam. More detail: 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanoi_%E2%80%93_Amsterdam_High_School

Setting the context

Vietnam gifted and talented education

There are 64 centrally managed provinces and cities in Vietnam with a population of about 87 million. Vietnam general education system is divided into three levels: (1) primary school (grade 1 to 5),where  pupils start grade 1 at age 6 years; (2) lower secondary school (grade 6 to 9); (3) upper secondary (grade 10 to 12). Besides general schooling, there are also kindergarten and tertiary education including junior college, university, Masters and PhD programs. There are more than 20 million students in this education system. (based on the data of General Statistics Office of Vietnam and Nguyen, 2011).

Gifted education initiatives started with national competitions in main subjects such as Mathematics and Vietnamese from the beginning of the 1960s. From 1965, the first “special mathematics classes” were established (Nguyen, 2001 in Nguyen, 2011). After the war (1975) until now, there have been expansions of special classes’ subjects, such as Physics, Chemistry, Literature, Foreign Language, Biology, Geography, Informatics, History, in parallel with the setting up of selective schools nationwide. Recently, from the 1990s onwards, the concepts and models of selective schools in primary and lower secondary levels have been banned in order to avoid young learners'
“overloading". However, at the matter of fact, the “special classes” in these school levels still exist to meet the needs of gifted children and their parents. Officially, there are 76 selective upper secondary schools, including 9 gifted “schools within schools” in the universities and other models, with about 50.000 gifted students, account for 1.74% of same age peers in national schools. (Nguyen, 2009) 

International examples from Gross (2003)

In the chapter titled “International Perspectives”, Gross describes the current progress of three nations (England, Scotland and Australia) in adapting the “vis-à-vis” rather than “versus” philosophy in gifted education, and how one nation (Russia) as a nation is facing this challenge. (For a metaphor of understanding, the author shows real examples of vis-à-vis placements as the face-to-face occupants going “on the same journey” and facilitating discussion, rather than “opposite”, “versus”, points of view)

Structure

I will divide the following arguments into three couples of views, in which each one will be discussed from the “versus” approach to the “vis-à-vis” approach. The Vietnamese circumstances in the discussion of the first couple, Equity and Excellence, could be viewed­­ mainly from sociocultural views.  The second couple, Potential and Performance, would be influenced by educational and philosophical angles; and the third, Natural Resource and Special Education, are mostly powered by political affection. The international examples will be cited from Gross (2003) and other scientific works in books, journal articles and websites. Due to a lack of paper works in this field, the Vietnamese evidence will be sourced mainly from online news.

1.      Equity / Excellence

1.1.  From Versus debates

These contrasting views are one of the more tense debates (Gallagher, 2003; VanTassel-Baska, 1998), in which one side (equity) advocates for narrowing the achievement gaps, and the other (excellence) supports maximizing the individual outcomes. There are two main problems with this debate: (1) Grouping (or not grouping) and (2) Balancing chances for academic gifted learners in comparison with other kinds of gifted and talented, such as in sports and in arts.

From the equity’s allies’ viewpoints, special provisions for high-able academically learners are “unequal”, even as “educational apartheid” (Carey, as cited in Gross, 2003). In America, the grouping initiatives “counter to the egalitarian society” and “the ambivalence produced “Love-hate” relationship between society and the concept of giftedness, toward abolishing ability grouping.” (Davis & Rimm, 2004). In Vietnam, “Vo Ngoc Thu, Head of the district 5’s education sub-department in Ho Chi Minh City, said selected classes will create unfairness to both students and teachers. Students with weak learning capabilities will feel inferiority, while teachers will have to work hard.” (Vietnamnet.vn, 2011a). Scotland and England, although slightly more experienced in contrast, still view “the inclusion setting is more “equitable”” (Gross,2003). Apparently, this equity here is not really an “equal” mindset. In other words, Gross states it is “outcomes equality” to “cut down the tall poppies” (Gross 2004, p.31). VanTassel-Baska (1998) also stresses similarly that, “bringing the top down does not bring the bottom up; it only lowers the level of play”

Ironically, the special conditions are provided to the young gifted and talented in non-academic field easily and worldwide. Gross (2003) points out that in Australia, “talent in sports and the performing arts has traditionally been admired and fostered”. She clarifies more in Gross (2004) by sharing the program named “Going for Gold”, where the funds for young gifted in sport reach 51.7 million dollars, “is not only applauded, but also funded from public budget” quickly and without any against opinion. In Vietnam, there is an official “resolution clearly stipulates that grammar schools must not organize classes for selected students and that there must not be primary and secondary schools for the gifted, except the arts and sports majoring schools.” (Vietnamnet.vn, 2011a, emphasis added). In America, Gallagher (1976, as cited in Gross, 1999a), tells a story about a principal proposing an intellectually gifted program (which is similar to the other existed program for gifted basketball players), and faces powerful objections from teachers and parents, who claim that the proposal is anti-democratic and elitist, goes “against the spirit of American education”.

1.2.  Vis-à-vis approach

VanTassel-Baska (1998) comments that the versus between excellence and equity is “an unnecessary tension”(p.262) and “true equity cannot disallow the opportunity to pursue excellence” . John Gardner, (as cited in VanTassel-Baska, 1998), also asks “can we be equal and excellent too?” The answer is yes. In England, for example, they balance views of programs for gifted and talented learners are emerging, in which they advocate both mixed-ability approach and ability grouping or fast-tracking. (Education and Employment Committee, 1999, in Gross 2003).  Recently, “England’s Secretary of State for Education maintains that his Government’s top educational priorities are ‘raising standards’ (aka excellence) and ‘narrowing gaps’ (aka equity).” (Dracup, 2010) In Scotland, Australia and Russia, it is widely accepted that pre and in-service training for educators should take an important role in switching from “versus” to “vis-à-vis” mindsets, and therefore could provide tailored provisions for gifted and talented learners self-confidently. (Gross, 2003).In Vietnam, if these similar training services happened, those stereotypes of “special provisions harming students and teachers” would be substituted by the variety of alongside solutions, from acceleration to grouping, with curriculum differentiating and enrichment, as well as out-of-school programs and services. Hence, by promoting excellence and “true equity” alongside, the vis-à-vis approach will lead the gifted and talented education to various districts in many countries with different social-economics conditions, through dynamic and flexible application to maintain the equality and achieve the maximum outcome at the same time.

2.      Potential / Performance

2.1.  From Versus approach

From philosophical views, there are two approaches of the giftedness concept. The potential perception supports the “natural” and somehow raw and “invisible” abilities (Gagne, 1995; Tannenbaum, 2003) whereas the performance-based viewpoint realizes giftedness through outcome and mature skills. (Renzulli, 2003; Sternberg, 2003a; 2003b). These points of view and their applications will influence the designing provisions for gifted and talented learners, especially in identification. In the Vietnam case, which is mainly based on the performance approach, the education system has been using only academic testing for entrance to the selective schools. It would select only “experts” in academic or ““fighting cocks”, who only spend time studying” (Vietnamnet.vn, 2010), rather than find the natural ability in gifted students. Furthermore, only 1.74% students are studying in those selective schools, which means that many others are being “big fishes in little ponds”, where can lead the students to be  underachievers and to have a life of boredom and constant studying. On the contrary, according to Gross (2003), in Scotland, England and Australia, the “multifaceted approach” of identification has been applied for exploring more “natural abilities” than the single academic performance. In addition, at least 5% student in New South Wales (Australia) and England to around 10% in Scotland will be identified and served specially. (Gross, 2003).

2.2.  To Vis-à-vis practices

 “An education system that adopts the Gagné definition commits itself to identifying high potential in students – real potential, not imagined potential proposed for political reasons! – and creating an educational and social environment which will develop that potential into high performance.”  (Gross, 2004, p.27)

Australia and Scotland are in the route of meeting special needs of gifted learners. (Gross, 2003). However, even performance representative experts such as Renzulli &Reis (2009); Sternberg (2003b) are in support of vis-à-vis practices, which focuses more on nurturing the gifted and talented learners than arguing continuously about the nature in giftedness. Particularly, several scholars recommend substituting “gifted education” with the term “talent development” (Renzulli&Reis1997; Treffinger, 1995, Treffinger & Feldhusen1996, as cited in Davis & Rimm, 2004)), to stress the ongoing process of practices in gifted and talented education,  rather than only labelling “gifted” and “non-gifted”. This approach is also suitable with the “talent development” process that Gagne has been proposing in nearly three decades. Vietnam, as a follower country, could catch this modern trend to facilitate the programs and services for gifted learners, from identification; planning, to implementation, assessment and evaluation.

3.      National Resource/ Special Education

3.1.  From Versus approach

Saving the best for the last few viewpoints, I firstly present some common notions from generation to generation of “national resource.” In Vietnam, from 1442, Than Nhan Trung, an eminent scholar, points out that “Talent is the life-sustaining element of the nation”. Recently, in the March of 2011, Vietnam “has been called on to promptly map out a national strategy on talent, in order to optimise the utility of this valuable resource for speeding up its national industrialisation and modernisation.” (Dantri.vn, 2011a, emphasis added)  Hollingworth (1940) and Tomlinson-Keasay (1990) emphasise gifted and talented children in America as the “most value asset of nation” or “national resource” (as cited in Gross, 1999a). In Australia, the Senate Selected Committee (1988, as cited in Gross, 1999a) noted that “without the contribution of its gifted citizens, Australian society would be poorer both materially and culturally. We would be less able to compete internationally.” Borland (1989) expresses the “versus” between national-resources approach (as a national interest) and special-educational rationales (as the meeting individual needs).

On the one hand, governments from all over the world have been doing several initiatives to enhance their “outside” pride to support their national interests and resource, as discussed above. For example, by nurturing gifted in arts, sports, sciences, China and Eastern European countries, such as the former USSR, reason that “such individuals could enhance national honour by winning international competitions” (Urban&Sekowski, 1993; Stevenson, 1998, as cited in Moon & Rosselli, 2000). Gross(2003) also mentions a system of “increasingly rigorous competitions was developed” in  Russia to identify and nurture gifted in general science.  In the United States, most of national campaigns in gifted education are answering the international threats: “the United States is losing its competitive edge! To the Soviet Union in 1950s, to Japan in 1980s, and now to China!” (Dai, 2009). Furthermore, Carroll, Crowe, Earle, Orland, Moon, Ross and  Subotnik (2009) describe along this line, that in America, “giftedness as a precious natural resource should be cultivated and put to good use for the sake of national interest, and no one would question the value of doing so.” (see Dai, 2009).  In Vietnam, where has been influenced by its former allies such as the Soviet Union, gifted education mostly concentrates on science subjects, such as Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry. The results are remarkable, especially in the International Mathematics Olympiad (IMO). Joining for the first time in 1974,  the Vietnam Team often ranks in top 10.  Ngo Bao Chau, born in 1972, who won two Gold Medals in IMO 1988 and 1989, has just achieved the Fields Medal at the International Congress of Mathematicians, 2010. (Dantri.vn, 2011b). Currently, Vietnam plans to spend VND 2.31 trillion (USD 118.6 million) towards the development of its gifted high schools (upper secondary schools) system:

Specifically, about VND 624 billion (USD 32 million) out of the total will be spent on developing the teaching staff including sending the teachers abroad for higher education programmes. Under the plan, Vietnam targets that by 2020 each city or province will have at least one gifted high school. The number of students who attend gifted high schools in a city or province accounts for about two precent of the total number of high school students in that area. The country also has set a goal that by 2015, all gifted high schools across Vietnam will reach a national standard.  (Dantri.vn, 2010; Lookatvietnam.com, 2010)

Although it sounds ambitious, the question is which are the special needs which should be served? Are there any other formats of gifted programs and services rather than just selective schools with specific subjects? Furthermore, that “two percent” means that  at least three to eight per cent of students will be underachievers. In Russia, Grigorenko (2000, in Gross 2003) remarks that “within this system gifted students received little social or emotional support”. Even in the United States, a leading country in serving gifted and talented children, “there are no laws to protect the rights of the gifted, in contrast with laws protecting minorities and women” (Davis & Rimm, 2004, p.1)

On the other hand, treating gifted and talented learners as a special and minor population is a must to serve the individual needs. Small (1999) asserts powerfully:

 “In particular the author argues that talent is not a 'national resource', and that educational programs for children should aim at their interests, not other people's. The best argument here is the simplest and most straightforward one: children should be given what they need and they need opportunities to develop whatever talents they have.”

If it is only approached in this way, there will be a lacking of national budget and human resource for the holistic gifted and talented education. In the United States, even with a decentralization system, the Department of Education has had an important role in envisioning and, in many cases, ordering the national researches and applications in gifted and talented education. In Australia, the Department of Education, Science and Training at least provides a systematically professional training for educators in the field.

3.2.  To Vis-à-vis application

In her debate of special education versus national resource, Gross states “I endorse both the special education and the national resource philosophy.” (1999a)

Schwartz (1994) also shows the importance of “national resources” as well as providing tailored opportunities to gifted individuals that are neither elitist or undemocratic as critics charge.

In England and Australia (Gross, 2003), there is a common trend of vis-à-vis application in gifted and talented policies, in which individual and national interest are both met effectively. In America, there is a positive signal since National Deceived, a strong advocacy of acceleration, has been published widely. In Vietnam, the acceleration is still a controversial topic with many prejudices (Vietnamnet.vn, 2011b). Hence, in Vietnam case, as a slower runner in this race, there should be needs of applying those pioneer international examples.

Conclusion

The development of gifted and talented education, from mystery to mastery’s models (Matthews & Foster, 2005b, 2006, as cited in Matthews, 2009), with diversity in programs and services for gifted children, and those are “more fluid connections with general education”, and better address the individual needs of those children. (Kerr 2009, p.309). Therefore, we should switch from against perceptions between “versus” views to a new approach with “vis-à-vis” philosophy, to make a common benefit for all stakeholders, and avoid falling in the poles of argument without any effective actions.

REFERENCES

Borland, J. H. (1989). Planning and implementing programs for the gifted. New York. Teachers College Press.

Dai, D. Y. (2009). Essential tensions surrounding the concept of giftedness. In L. Shavinina (Ed.), International Handbook of Giftedness (pp. 66-68). Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4020-6162-2.

Dantri.vn. (2010). Ministry of Education overhauling gifted programmes in high schools. Retrieved from http://www1.dtinews.vn/news/education/ministry-of-education-overhauling-gifted-programmes-in-high-schools_5735.html.

Dantri.vn. (2011a). Vietnam urged to adopt strong talent strategy. Retrieved from http://www1.dtinews.vn/news/vietnamese-talents/vietnam-urged-to-adopt-strong-talent-strategy_9547.html.

Dantri.vn. (2011b). 2010: Vietnamese talents shine worldwide. Retrieved from http://www1.dtinews.vn/news/vietnamese-talents/2010-vietnamese-talents-shine-worldwide_7294.html.

Davis, G. A., & Rimm, S. B. (2004). Education of the Gifted and Talented. (Fifth Edit., p. 534). Allyn & Bacon.

Davis, G., & Rimm, S. (2004). Education of the gifted and talented (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Dracup, T. (2010). On Ability Grouping and Gifted Education: Part 1. Retrieved from http://giftedphoenix.wordpress.com/2010/09/28/on-ability-grouping-and-gifted-education-part-1/.

Gagne, F. (1995). From giftedness to talent: A developmental model and its impact on the language of the field. Roeper Review, 18(2), 103-111. doi: 10.1080/02783199509553709.

Gallagher, J. J. (2003). Issues and challenges in the education of gifted students. In N. Colangelo & G. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of Gifted Education (pp. 11-23). Allyn & Bacon.

Gross, M. (2003). International perspectives. In N. Colangelo & G. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of Gifted Education (pp. 547-557). Allyn & Bacon.

Gross, M. U. M. (1999). Inequity in equity: The paradox of gifted education in Australia. Australian Journal of Education, 43(1), 87-103.

Gross, M. U. M. (2004). Exceptionally gifted children (2nd ed., p. 307 p.). London ; New York: RoutledgeFalmer.

Kerr, B. (2009). Encyclopedia of Giftedness, Creativity, and Talent. (B. Kerr, Ed.)Cognitive Development (p. 1112). Sage Publications, Inc. Retrieved from http://www.amazon.com/Encyclopedia-Giftedness-Creativity-Talent-Barbara/dp/1412949718.

Lookatvietnam.com. (2010). The project on gifted schools raises debates. Retrieved May 10, 2011, from http://www.lookatvietnam.com/2010/12/the-project-on-gifted-schools-raises-debates.html.

M.Moon, S., & C.Rosselli, H. (2000). Developing gifted programs. International Handbook of Giftedness and Talent (pp. 499-521). Elsevier Inc.

Matthews, D. J. (2009). How do you get to Carnegie Hall ? Gifted education in New York city. In L. Shavinina (Ed.), International Handbook of Giftedness (pp. 1365-1384). Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4020-6162-2.

Nguyen, H. (2009). Selective schools will be the role models of nationwide schools in the future (in Vietnamese). Vietnam Education and Times. Retrieved from http://www.gdtd.vn/channel/2741/200912/Truong-THPT-chuyen-se-la-mau-hinh-tuong-lai-cua-cac-truong-THPT-1920322/.

Nguyen, T. M. P. (2011). Gifted education in Vietnam throughout history. Talent Development Around the World. Retrieved from http://worldtalent.fundetal.org/libros/ver_libro.php?IDlibro=7.

Renzulli, J. S. (2003). Conception of Giftedness and Its Relationship to the Development of Social Capital. In N. Colangelo & G. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of Gifted Education (pp. 73-87).

Renzulli, J. S., & Reis, S. M. (2009). A Technology-Based Application of the Schoolwide Enrichment Model and High-End Learning Theory A Brief History of the SEM Enrichment : The Renzulli Learning. Learning, 1203-1223. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4020-6162-2.

Schwartz, L. L. (1994). Why give “gifts” to the gifted? Investing in a national resource. (p. 162). Corwin Press.

Small, R. (1999). In the interest of the child: Assessing the arguments for gifted education: Response to Miraca Gross. Australian Journal of Education, 43(1), 103-107.

Sternberg, R. J. (2003a). WICS as a model of giftedness. High Ability Studies, 14(2), 109-137. doi: 10.1080/1359813032000163807.

Sternberg, R. J. (2003b). Giftedness According to the Theory of Successful Intelligence. In N. ; G. A. D. Colangelo (Ed.), Handbook of Gifted Education (3rd ed., p. 640). Merrill.

Tannenbaum, A. J. (2003). Nature and Nurture of Giftedness. In N. ; G. A. D. Colangelo (Ed.), Handbook of Gifted Education (3rd ed., p. 640). Merrill.

VanTassel-Baska, J. (1998). Excellence in educating gifted & talented learners. Love Publishing Company.

Vietnamnet.vn. (2010). MOET sets up goals too ambitious for gifted school development plan? Retrieved from http://en.baomoi.com/Home/education/english.vietnamnet.vn/MOET-sets-up-goals-too-ambitious-for-gifted-school-development-plan/93444.epi.

Vietnamnet.vn. (2011a). Classes for selected students tormenting students and parents. Retrieved May 12, 2011, from http://english.vietnamnet.vn/en/education/8089/classes-for-selected-students-tormenting-students-and-parents.html.

Vietnamnet.vn. (2011b). School headmasters authorized to allow students to skip grades. Retrieved from http://english.vietnamnet.vn/en/education/8198/school-headmasters-authorized-to-allow-students-to-skip-grades.html.