School does not meet the needs of many teens in a meaningful way. These frustrated individuals have choices to make concerning how they react to this situation. Do they change their habits to fit in with the crowd, or flex their independence and stand up for their specific needs?
Sometimes risks are taken that overtly buck expectations and focus teacher attention on unmet learner needs. Students also often choose to adhere and conform to expectations in school. A gifted student facing this choice may either conform to grade level expectations or choose to fit in with age peers and not achieve to his or her ability. The latter choice earns the learners the dubious label of underachievers-but only if they get caught!
This young person feels considerable stress about the pending school year based on perceptions, expectations and prior experience, and has to make decisions that will affect the entire school year. These decisions concern me as a teacher.
Illuminating Student RealitiesThe lack of emphasis in the literature regarding gifted underachieving performance and classroom climate provided a need to examine these interactions. The lack of the gifted underachievers' voices-those individuals with the most at stake in the education process-necessitated an examination of their experiences in the classroom. Until implications behind the label underachiever are examined, interpreted and documented from the reality of those individuals bearing the label, little impact can be realized from intervention practices intended to allay this behavior. This article explores submersion of a gifted student to understand the reality of living and surviving in the classroom. Focusing on the voice and views of the student undergirds the structure of my analysis into the lives of special needs students (Schultz, 1999).
Twice Exceptional TendenciesComparisons of characteristics for gifted underachievers and the learning-disabled gifted are almost identical (Maker, 1977; Schiff, Kaufman, & Kaufman, 1981; Tannenbaum & Baldwin, 1983; Whitmore, 1980; Wolf & Gygi, 1981). Interestingly, the interactions of giftedness and a disabling condition can, and often do mask one another (Silverman, 1989; Whitmore & Maker, 1985). Gifted individuals, due to their depth and breadth of abilities, can compensate for a disabling condition with exceptionalities in other areas. This may enable the person to completely shroud the disabling condition and exist in a classroom undiagnosed (and unnoticed), performing at an acceptable level while remaining under-challenged in several ability areas.
SubmersionSubmersion is the process of covering over, suppressing, or hiding (McKechnie, 1983). This operative term describes tendencies of many learners. Large numbers of students journey through public and private education underchallenged by the curriculum. Their needs are not brought to the teacher's attention because these students have experienced or witnessed penalties when reacting overtly to limitations in their school experiences-penalties intent on retaining the status quo regardless of their needs or focusing attention on a learning disability stifling their ability to progress in the classroom at a pace matching other abilities.
Teachers rarely provide optional learning opportunities from the standard curriculum to the underchallenged student. Most take it as a personal attack on their competence as a professional when a student presents evidence that he or she is not learning. This response fosters a power struggle that leads ultimately to the emotional and social downfall of the under-challenged student. Some individuals are removed from the class setting and labeled as behavior problems. Others may be required to do additional work to engage their faculties. Still others may be relegated to the role of junior teacher-required to work with less able students to bring them up to the class average. In all cases, the needs of the gifted individual wane, prompting highly capable students to submerse themselves in the classroom avoiding attention to their needs-it is an emotional, self-preservation response to a repressive environment where learning is not the intent of the process for these gifted students. Submersion is best understood through case study analysis of a student exhibiting this behavior (Schultz, 1999). Jim is an example of such a student.
Jim (age 16, grade 10)Jim blended well into the suburban classroom in his Midwestern community. His seat was located in the back and he did not draw attention to himself. He was attentive and focused, completing assignments when they were due, quietly managing tasks.
Jim's compulsion to remain anonymous follows his nature as observed in the classroom. When he was called on by his teacher to either answer a question, or participate in an activity, he was flustered and noticeably agitated.
Jim had two peers in class with whom he exchanged discussion and pleasantries. He did not interact with any of the remaining eighteen students. Jim seemed content to traverse the interaction-laden educational milieu with as few connections to others as possible-including my attempts to interact with him on a less formal level.
When questioned about his aspirations, Jim responded:
True to his observed nature, Jim did not have a problem with these expectations. He traveled through the school day flowing with requirements of the classes he was taking. Jim was unwilling to draw attention to himself and seemingly comfortable with his performance.
On his report card, one exception clearly stood out. Jim was required to read a book for Language Arts and felt this was an injustice. "I don't enjoy that class. I don't like to 'have to' read a book," he stated (Schultz, 1999, pg. 118). He had no choice in the book to read and rebelled by not completing the assigned readings and written work to his abilities. Jim risked being labeled as an underachiever in Language Arts based on the perception he had been wronged.
He perceived school as a frustrating repeat of learned material. "In school most of the time I'm really bored or really frustrated. Bored is having to sit through something that's pretty much a review lesson" (Schultz, 1999, pg. 118). Jim shared a specific example from his science class. "There's been stuff in Biology that we've learned all the way back in sixth grade and people still don't really catch on to it. But you're kind of forced to sit through it no matter if you already learned it or not" (Schultz, 1999, pg. 106). His body language showed that these thoughts were very agitating to Jim.
In Language Arts there was evidence based on grades and testimony that Jim was underachieving. However, in his other classes it was difficult to ascertain his status. He earned high marks and abided by class rules, effectively submersing into the status quo.
Jim displayed wisdom beyond his years. His response to a question asking the definition of the term gifted offered a penetrating look into his past experiences in school:
I asked Jim to share some of his thoughts about teachers and teaching. He focused on the flow and reflection that teachers need to instill in the classroom in his response:
When asked to clarify the above statement, Jim added, "the teacher needs to know something about each student in the classroom. There has to be some understanding of where the kids are before the teacher can begin covering the content" (Schultz, 1999, pg. 136). Without this simple, but instrumental task being accomplished the teacher is guessing at the needs of the students. Jim saw this weakness as a common occurrence in classrooms. Teachers lost sight of the fact that they are employed to help students learn, not just teach a prescribed curriculum and hope that students absorb some of the information ultimately moving to the next educational level.
Jim explained that it is not only possible, but preferential to underachieve in class in order to concentrate efforts on areas of interest outside of the prescribed curriculum. This survival mechanism allowed him to follow his interests rather than be bogged down by additional non-engaging work.
ImplicationsJim chose to share his perceptions, expectations and experiences about school. He cautiously and rigorously planned decisions either to meet minimal expectations and remain in charge of his personal learning time or not to achieve to the expectations of others. Each teacher and subject required Jim to use different sets of perceptions, expectations and experiences that were weighed with great care prior to making a performance decision. Behaviors were fluidly modified as interactions were analyzed and evaluated and social settings changed.
School systems label learners for administrative purposes-to facilitate budgeting, public relations, and communication. These classifications make it easy for teachers to forget these labels mask differences, making learners more heterogeneous in life that they appear on paper (Gagne, 1993). Students I have worked with including Jim felt that schools are too impersonal, controlling, time-referenced and rushed, and, uncaring for them to excel toward their unique ability levels. Most were content to play along and circumvent situations that would cause their "true" identities to show.
As Jim so eloquently stated, it is better for him to exist in the classroom without drawing attention to his frustration and lack of learning. This provides opportunity to engage in more personally satisfying mental activities while the class prods along at its perceived stagnant pace. Students like Jim cope with the malady of underchallenge by challenging themselves in areas of personal interest covertly during the school day. They submerse themselves in the educational setting, displaying the facade of attentiveness and conformity to teachers, administrators and sometimes their parents.
Jim had very few opportunities to feel good about his educational experience. He provided reflective insights into the complexity of his life to enlighten me in hopes that teachers and others might change the education system and its practices-changes which are necessary so other students like him might experience more trustworthy relationships with those charged to help them learn in meaningful ways.
In the ClassroomPeer Nomination Since peers are in contact with one another over the years of their common educational experiences, they are in positions to notice abilities that are not obvious to a teacher in a classroom setting (Masse & Gagne, 1996). Therefore, peer nominations can be viable means of identifying children whose giftedness is masked (Shore, Cornell, Robinson & Ward, 1991) by behaviors such as submersion.
Communication and Negotiation Students have responsibility for themselves and their learning. By becoming skilled at communication and negotiation learners can have more active roles in the education process. Administrators, parents and community members have jobs where these skills are critical for success. These individuals can be resources and mentors for students attempting to learn these skills.
Teaching and Learning Students control learning. They choose to pay attention, daydream, or conduct other activities during the school day. From the view of teachers, these choices may hinder the education process. From the view of students, these are necessary diversions from a less-than-adequate curriculum.
Connections must be built between the content, teaching objectives and events occurring in student lives. Providing choices for assignments and topics or allowing students to "test out of' material and move on are two methods of connecting with students' needs. Discussing your learning and providing opportunities for students to share theirs present students with the intellectual and emotional joys of learning for the sake of the learner, not because of an impending evaluation. This is the methodology of life-long independent learning that gifted students seek to experience.
Glancing Back, Looking ForwardSchool is not a caring experience for many students. They are not received based on their underlying needs or desires (Noddings, 1992). The worth of school to many students is waning but teachers and administrators can quell the deterioration by providing students an active role including choice and control in their learning (Darling-Hammond, 1997; Henderson & Hawthorne, 1994; LeCompte, 1987; Schultz & Delisle, 1997).
Students I worked with including Jim (Schultz, 1999) are stuck on an academic merry-go-round whirling by the same content over and over. Internally driven to learn, they became frustrated, angry and unchallenged, perpetually waiting, hoping to do something interesting. Even when moving forward, the pace and content were deliberate. Stripped of personal choice, challenge and control in their classrooms; their expected academic learning deteriorated.
This pattern broke with caring teachers who guided with passion and understanding. However, this was an uncommon occurrence. School existed primarily as a monotonous job for these students, a place where they went through the motions, earned their pay-grades on report cards-and engaged in learning activities on their own time, in their own way.
I saw these resilient individuals slowly withering away- anticipating that somewhere in the future their learning needs will be met. How many others will follow in their footsteps circuitously repeating behaviors and experiencing the frustration that Jim described?
This essay presents one small slice into the lives of gifted underachieving students in the classroom. My work fleetingly enabled the voices of silenced individuals to be heard (Freire, 1970; Illich, 1971). Future research must provide more opportunities for students to be heard. Without this emphasis, education exists as an inadequate intellectual process for many gifted students with social, emotional and academic conformity the ultimate goal.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). The right to learn. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Herder & Herder.
Gagne, F. (1993). Constructs and models pertaining to exceptional human abilities. In K. A. Heller, F .1. Monks, & A.H. Passow (Eds), International handbook of research and development of giftedness and talent (pp. 63-85). Oxford, England.
Henderson, J.G., & Hawthorne, R.D. (1995). Transformative curriculum leadership. Columbus, OH: Merrill.
Illich, I. (1971). Deschooling society. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
LeCompte, M.D. (1987). Why remedial problems fail to solve the problems. Education & Urban Society, 19(3), 232-249.
Maker, C.J. (1977). Providing programs for the gifted handicapped. Reston, V A: Council for Exceptional Children.
Masse, L., & Gagne, F. (1996). Should self-nominations be allowed in peer nomination forms? Gifted Child Quarterly, 40(I), 24-30.
McKechnie, J.L. (1983). Webster's new universal unabridged dictionary. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
Noddings, N. (1992). The challenge to care in schools. An alternative approach to education. Advances in contemporary educational thought. Volume 8. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Schultz, R.A. (1999). Deciphering gifted underachiever performance in the secondary science classroom: Illuminating learner realities. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Kent State University, Kent, Ohio.
Schultz, R.A., & Delisle, J.R. (1997). School, curriculum and the good life: Knowing the self. Roeper Review, 20(2), 99-104.
Schiff, M.M., Kaufman, A.S., & Kaufman, N.L. (1981). Scatter analysis of WISC-R profiles for learning disabled children with superior intelligence. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 14, 400-404.
Silverman, L.K. (1989). Invisible gifts, invisible handicaps. Roeper Review, 12(1), 37-42.
Shore, B.M., Cornell, D.G., Robinson, A., & Ward, V.S. (1991). Recommended practices in gifted education: A critical analysis. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Tannenbaum, A.J., & Baldwin, L.J. (1983). Giftedness and learning disability: A paradoxical combination. In L.H. Fox, L. Brody, & D. Tobin (Eds.), Learning-disabled gifted children: Identification and programming (pp. 11-36). Baltimore, MD: University Park Press.
Whitmore, J .R. (1980). Giftedness, conflict, and underachievement. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Whitmore, J.R., & Maker, C.J. (1985). Intellectual giftedness in disabled persons. Rockville, MD: Aspen Systems.
Wolf, J., & Gygi, J. (1981). Learning disabled and gifted: Success or failure? Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 4, 199-206.
Reprinted with permission of the author.
This article is provided as a service of the Davidson Institute for Talent Development, a 501(c)3 nonprofit dedicated to supporting profoundly gifted young people 18 and under. To learn more about the Davidson Institute’s programs, please visit www.DavidsonGifted.org.
The appearance of any information in the Davidson Institute's Database does not imply an endorsement by, or any affiliation with, the Davidson Institute. All information presented is for informational purposes only and is solely the opinion of and the responsibility of the author. Although reasonable effort is made to present accurate information, the Davidson Institute makes no guarantees of any kind, including as to accuracy or completeness. Use of such information is at the sole risk of the reader.