HOW and WHY TO SEARCH FOR YOUNG EINSTEINS
New research suggests new ways to nurture gifted children.
EVERY year in Singapore, 1% of pupils in the third year of primary school bring home an envelope headed “On government service”. Inside is an invitation to the city-state’s Gifted Education Programme. To receive the overture, pupils must ace maths, English and “general ability” tests. If their parents accept the offer, the children are taught using a special curriculum.
Singapore’s approach is emblematic of the traditional form of “gifted” education, which uses intelligence tests with strict thresholds to identify children with seemingly innate ability. Yet in many countries, it is being overhauled in two main ways. The first is that educationists use a broader range of methods to identify brilliant children, especially those from poor households. The second is an increasing focus on fostering the attitudes and personality traits found in successful people in various disciplines, including those who did not ace intelligence tests.
New research lies behind these shifts. It shows that countries which do not get the most from their best and brightest face considerable economic costs. The study also suggests that the nature-or-nurture debate is a false dichotomy. Intelligence is highly heritable and the best predictor of success. But it is far from the only characteristic that matters for future eminence.
IQ tests have attracted furious criticism. Christopher Hitchens argued, “There is…an unusually high and consistent correlation between the stupidity of a given person and [his] propensity to be impressed by the measurement of IQ.” Like any assessment, IQ tests are not perfect. However, researchers in cognitive science agree that general intelligence—not book-learning but the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, and so on—is an identifiable and essential attribute that IQ tests can measure.
Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth (SMPY). Founded 1971 over 25 years ago, it recruited 5,000 precocious children, each with intelligence-test scores in early adolescence high enough to enter university. Of the SMPY participants who scored among the top 0.5% for their age group in maths and verbal tests, 30% earned a doctorate, versus 1% of Americans. These children were also much more likely to have high incomes and to file patents. Of the top 0.01% of children, 50% went on to earn a PhD, medical or law degree.
Do gifted children go on to become disproportionately troubled? Of course, there are exceptions. However, on average, having a high IQ as a child is associated with better physical and mental health as an adult. Being moved up a school year tends to do them little harm.
Linking gifted education to economic growth is common sense in countries without many natural resources, such as Singapore. In 2013, two specialist maths schools were started in England. Sadly, however, the potential of poor bright children is often wasted. The likelihood of filing patents is still much greater among smart kids from wealthy families. A lot of talent is being squandered.
Gifted schemes have often not helped. When applications are voluntary, they come primarily from wealthy or pushy parents. 70% of pupils admitted to such programmes were white or Asian (only 30% of the school-age population).
It helps when schools test every child. Universal screening resulted in admissions increasing by 180% among poor children, 130% among Hispanics and 80% among black pupils. (Admissions among white children fell.) Miami-Dade has a lower IQ threshold for poor children or those for whom English is a second language, and 6.9% of black pupils are in the gifted programme, versus 2.4% and 3.6% in Florida and nationwide.
The “gifted” label has changed in favour of “high-ability”. No state relies on a single IQ score to select students. School districts are also testing for other attributes, including spatial ability (i.e., the capacity to generate, manipulate and store visual images, which is strongly linked to achievement in science and technology later in life). Relying only on measures of intelligence will fail to find children with the potential to excel in adult life. Other possible paths to success may include passion, determination and creativity.
Whether termed “grit”, “task-motivation,” or “conscientiousness”, persistence is essential. “As much as talent counts, effort counts twice.” Deliberate practice over a long period (popularly understood as 10,000 hours) is critical. Talent requires development, and that should involve promoting hard work.
Children’s “mindset” (the beliefs they have about learning). Children who think they can change their intelligence have a growth mindset and quickly start to do better in tests. Teaching methods help. Interventions based on growth-mindset are less effective than their hype implies.
Gifted education should influence education more broadly. If primary-school pupils are taught using methods often reserved for brainier kids, fostering high expectations, complex problem-solving and cultivating meta-cognition (or “thinking about thinking”). Nearly every one of them went on to do much better on tests than their similar peers.
Roughly 50% of the variance in IQ scores is due to genetic differences. Nurture, hard work, and social background matter, but they undermine the idea that intelligence can be willed into being. As long as they are open to everyone, IQ tests still have a vital role to play. To find lost Einsteins, you have to look for them.
- Excerpted from “How and Why to Search For Young Einsteins” in the
