To guide a parent of a gifted child through the necessary steps for identification and operational support, here's a detailed step-by-step plan that you can modify and adapt:

1. Identification of Signs of Giftedness and Validation
   Observation at home: Note early behaviors such as advanced verbal skills, insatiable curiosity, or specific talents, keen observations, quick wit, and specific performances in music, arts, or mathematics.
   Evaluation in school: Consult teachers for feedback on academic performance, classroom participation, and social interactions. Gather information on how they integrate into groups or behave with friends. Are they surprised by others' behavior or deeply saddened by seemingly trivial matters that most children would overlook?
   Psychometric tests: Have your child evaluated by a specialized psychologist to take IQ tests and other cognitive assessments after the age of 7 to directly access the more relevant WISC for children. This will provide a detailed report including specific recommendations for their education and development (to be taken with caution).
   
   
2. Education and Training
   As a parent, you can train yourself: Attend workshops or seminars on giftedness to understand your child's specific needs.
   Reading and resources: Read books and articles on giftedness to better understand the challenges and opportunities and anticipate potential needs. This will also help you understand their reactions and behaviors and give you the tools to adapt your behaviors, proposed activities, and possibly nourish them if they are in demand, as school alone cannot meet all their needs for understanding the world, knowledge, creativity development, or critical thinking.
3. Choice of School and Educational Programs
   This is not a mandatory step, especially if they are adapting well to their current school and there is no pressing reason to seek alternatives. However, if necessary, you can explore various options.
   Research suitable schools: Identify schools with specialized programs for gifted children or those known for their flexibility and support for individual needs.
   Enrichment programs: Explore extracurricular enrichment programs, such as science clubs, advanced music classes, or artistic activities. Sports activities can also provide a beneficial balance.
   
   
4. Implementation of a Support Plan
   Personalized Education Plan (PEP) or other PPRE how they are called in France): Work with the public school to create a personalized education plan that meets your child's specific needs. Refer to my blog article on this subject.
   Classroom adaptations: Ensure that the teacher understands your child's needs and is willing to adapt teaching methods and educational content. Read my article on the Vademecum and teacher training; do not blindly trust the school.
5. Emotional and Social Support
   A psychologist or possibly a coach specializing in giftedness can help work on social skills, group integration, building relationships and understanding their mechanisms, managing emotions, and problem-solving strategies.
   Support groups: Join support groups for parents of gifted children to share experiences and advice.
   
   
6. Regular Monitoring and Adjustments
   Periodic reviews: Regularly evaluate your child's progress and adjust educational plans and support strategies accordingly. Do not leave everything to the school and be active and willing in the co-construction and precise evaluation of their knowledge.
   Continuous feedback: Maintain open and regular communication with teachers to receive and provide constant feedback on your child's emotional and social well-being at school, as well as their achievements.
7. Encouragement of Autonomy
   Development of self-management skills: Teach your child to manage their own time, set goals, and develop independent work strategies. A coach can also help with this.
   Positive reinforcement: Encourage and support your child by acknowledging their efforts and achievements, which will boost their self-confidence. Do not hesitate to show them areas for improvement or deepening. Lifelong learning and understanding the world around us are essential.
   
   
   By following these steps, which can of course be adapted to individual personalities and contexts, you will have at least a roadmap and be better prepared to identify, understand, and effectively support your gifted child, providing them with the necessary tools and support to fully flourish.
    

The practice of "native advertising," by disguising itself as objective journalism, raises important questions about the manipulation of the masses. This technique, which blurs the line between editorial content and commercial promotion, can significantly impact public perception and behavior. Native advertising has the potential to subtly but powerfully shape consumer perceptions and behaviors. As Robert Cialdini explains in his book Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion (1984), persuasion techniques, when concealed, can be particularly effective. Sponsored content, presented under an editorial guise, can influence readers' opinions without their full awareness. This disguised persuasion tactic can be seen as a form of manipulation, especially when it is not clearly identified as paid content.

The dangers of misinformation and the erosion of trust are major concerns associated with native advertising. In Trust Me, I'm Lying: Confessions of a Media Manipulator (2012), Ryan Holiday describes how media can be exploited to spread misleading information, highlighting how easily the public can be deceived. When readers cannot distinguish between impartial journalism and advertising, the credibility of media as reliable information sources is compromised. This confusion can lead to widespread distrust of the media, making the public more likely to believe and spread erroneous or biased information.

The ethics and responsibility of the media are at the heart of the debate on native advertising. Media have a social responsibility to provide accurate and impartial information. However, when blurred lines between editorial content and sponsored content emerge, this responsibility can be called into question. In The Ethical Journalist: Making Responsible Decisions in the Digital Age (2008), Gene Foreman discusses the ethical dilemmas faced by journalists and editors in a changing media environment. Media must balance their commercial imperatives with their duty of transparency and editorial integrity to maintain audience trust.

Native advertising represents a persistent tension between the economic viability of media and the ethical imperatives of journalism. As media adapt to a constantly evolving digital environment, they must navigate carefully to avoid compromising their audience's trust. Transparency, public education, and commitment to journalistic principles are essential to ensure that media continue to play their vital role in society. Media must also explore innovative and diversified economic models to reduce their reliance on advertising revenue while maintaining high standards of editorial integrity and responsibility.

References:

• Cialdini, R. B. (1984). Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion. HarperCollins.
• Holiday, R. (2012). Trust Me, I'm Lying: Confessions of a Media Manipulator. Portfolio.
• Foreman, G. (2008). The Ethical Journalist: Making Responsible Decisions in the Digital Age.

Journalism, a pillar of information and democracy, today finds itself at an ethical crossroads due to the emergence of advertisements disguised as journalistic articles, a practice known as "native advertising." Prestigious publications, such as "Le Point" in France, engage in such practices, where the line between editorial content and advertising blurs, raising crucial questions about the integrity and credibility of the media. I was personally approached for such a marketing action, hence the birth of this article.

The practice of "native advertising" arises in a context where media outlets are seeking new sources of revenue in the face of declining traditional advertising income. This technique involves creating sponsored content that mimics the style and format of regular journalistic articles. Although this approach is lucrative, it poses a major challenge in terms of editorial integrity and transparency.

In his book The Content Trap (2016), Bharat Anand discusses how media have become trapped in a quest for content that, while attracting advertisers, often compromises their journalistic integrity. Native advertising is a perfect example of this trap: it offers an attractive financial solution for media but creates a conflict between commercial interests and journalistic responsibilities. What becomes of the impartiality, meaning, and objective of words? Newspapers like The New York Times and The Guardian have also experimented with this form of advertising. Although these publications generally maintain a clear distinction between editorial content and sponsored content, the line often becomes blurred, especially in digital media where navigation between articles is often rapid and less attentive.

The consequences of this practice are not negligible. A Stanford University study (2015) revealed that many readers struggle to differentiate between sponsored articles and traditional journalistic content. This confusion can lead to growing mistrust of the media, with potentially serious repercussions on public perception of the objectivity and reliability of the information provided, regardless of the source. Today, with AI, content creation primarily targeting internet referencing as well as marketing motivations contributes to generating an informational noise that no longer allows quality articles to truly stand out.

Trust is a crucial element in the relationship between media and their audience. When readers are confronted with content that intentionally blurs the line between journalism and advertising, their trust in the media can be seriously eroded. A study published in the Journal of Advertising (2016) revealed that native advertisements, when not clearly identified as such, can mislead the public. However, the goal of navigating between two waters is clear. To optimize the impact of an advertising operation presented as a background article in a major media, it is indeed a question of influencing readers through the authority represented by the media brand. If The New York Times or Le Point writes an article about you, it is not the same as if you advertise through them to present your activity.

This mistrust, when native advertising is detected, clearly worsens in a media context where misinformation and disinformation are growing concerns. Journalists are expected to adhere to ethical principles such as transparency, objectivity, and independence, a collective belief reinforced by usual Hollywood cinematic representations. However, when media engage in native advertising practices, these principles are compromised. Journalists may find themselves under pressure to produce content that attracts advertisers or meets their demands, to the detriment of journalistic objectivity and independence. This conflict is highlighted in the book Blur: How to Know What's True in the Age of Information Overload (2010) by Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel, where the authors discuss the challenges journalists face in a changing media landscape. These journalists are also dependent on remuneration channels ensuring their subsistence, which have been transforming since the 2000s and the advent of the internet.

In the specific case of Le Point, which adopts native advertising by selling spaces for disguised ads at high rates, it raises questions about financial dependence on advertising revenue by charging up to 2900 euros before tax, a sum that was quoted to me for a sponsored article. They have found a way to transform usual advertising into something that appears as quality content, researched and validated by journalistic investigation. Today, the real question is whether they will be able to turn back.

This dilemma is illustrated in The News Media: What Everyone Needs to Know (2016) by C.W. Anderson, Leonard Downie Jr., and Michael Schudson, where the authors examine the economic challenges media face in the digital age.

The proliferation of native advertising in traditional and digital media has a significant impact on the global media ecosystem. As Franklin Foer explains in World Without Mind: The Existential Threat of Big Tech (2017), the race for sponsored content and dependence on advertising revenue is changing the nature of journalism. This shift affects not only the quality and authenticity of journalistic content but also how the public perceives and interacts with the media. The blurred line between editorial and advertising content can lead to widespread confusion, fueling distrust of the media and exacerbating the phenomenon of "fake news."

The implications of this practice go beyond the media sector and affect the very foundations of democracy. Independent and reliable journalism is essential for an informed democratic society. In The Elements of Journalism: What Newspeople Should Know and the Public Should Expect (2014), Kovach and Rosenstiel highlight the importance of separating editorial from commercial operations as a pillar of journalism. When this separation is compromised, the entire structure of public information is threatened, with potential consequences for governance and civic participation.

Public reactions to the discovery of advertisements disguised as journalistic articles vary but tend towards growing mistrust. For example, when readers of The Guardian discovered that some of their "independent" articles were actually sponsored, it sparked criticism and a reevaluation of the newspaper's credibility. Such incidents highlight the need for media to maintain clear transparency and respect their readership's expectations in terms of integrity and reliability.

Media need to explore innovative economic models that do not rely solely on advertising. Options like paid subscriptions, crowdfunding models, or partnerships with educational and cultural institutions can offer viable alternatives. Part of the solution also lies in public education and awareness. Readers need to be better informed about the nature of native advertisements and learn to identify them. This awareness can be achieved through information campaigns, explanatory articles, and educational initiatives. The goal is to enhance media literacy among information consumers, enabling them to distinguish between different types of content.

References :
•    Anand, B. (2016). The Content Trap: A Strategist's Guide to Digital Change. Random House.
•    Foer, F. (2017). World Without Mind: The Existential Threat of Big Tech. Penguin Press.
•    Kovach, B., & Rosenstiel, T. (2014). The Elements of Journalism: What Newspeople Should Know and the Public Should Expect. Three Rivers Press.
•    Anderson, C.W., Downie Jr., L., & Schudson, M. (2016). The News Media: What Everyone Needs to Know. Oxford University Press.
•    Boorstin, D. J. (1962). The Image: A Guide to Pseudo-Events in America. Harper & Row.
•    Turow, J., & Hoofnagle, C. J. (2012). The Daily You: How the New Advertising Industry Is Defining Your Identity and Your Worth. Yale University Press.

The critique of the presented document primarily focuses on its main objective, which is to "train" teachers on the functioning of gifted children in a learning process and to guide them on actions to implement based on different situations or problems.
The Importance of Teacher Training and Willingness in the Education of Gifted Students (EHP, EIP, HPI, Gifted)

If you are interested in this topic, you likely know that official texts state that any teacher with a gifted student in their class is required to undergo training. Generally, this training is available on the Éduscol website and through a Vademecum.

In the Vademecum "Educating a Gifted Student (EHP)," it states: "Each teacher must ensure the inclusion of the gifted student in their class, undergo training, change, and offer pedagogical differentiation by leveraging the student's strengths."

This sounds perfectly well-intentioned, but in practice, the first question to ask is whether this training is sufficient. What will it concretely allow the teacher to implement, and with what effects?

When consulting the Vademecum, by reading the table of contents, you notice there are only two scant pages on pedagogical adaptations, pages 9 and 10. This directly impacts what the teacher can propose and implement.
Is the Training Sufficient?

To determine if training is sufficient, in the world of adult education, it involves an iterative process with a feedback session to ensure the relevance and effectiveness of the training.

In our case, let's minimize our expectations and try to define if it at least allows the teacher to understand the student, their actions, and their results to precisely define their skills. Is the teacher trained to evaluate a gifted student?

This raises another question: how to distinguish between a gifted student who has the skills but doesn't want to exert effort and another who lacks the skills, using a standard evaluation given to all students in a class?
The Central Issue of Skill Evaluation

Fine-tuned evaluation of skills is crucial here because a poor assessment of skills will lead to an array of accommodations that may not be beneficial.

This teacher training is essential to understand more precisely the situation and any potential problems as well as the learning specificities, among other things. This is what will allow a fair evaluation of the problem, but it is not enough. The teacher must also spend time observing and questioning the student.
1. The Nature of Teacher Training

So, what does the Vademecum of the Ministry of National Education, the primary training tool for teachers, contain? A lot of important things, without going into detail, a quick look at the table of contents gives us an idea:

    The Gifted Student
    A. What is a gifted student (EHP)?
    B. How to identify a gifted student (EHP)?
    The Schooling Paths of Gifted Students (EHP)
    A. What is the official framework for the schooling of a gifted student (EHP)?
    B. How to adjust and adapt the school curriculum?
        Pedagogical differentiation
        Tutoring by adults
        Enriching the curriculum
        Unstreaming
        Accelerating the curriculum
        Implementing a dedicated space
        C. What tools are available to formalize the paths for the gifted student?
        The personalized educational success program (PPRE)
        The personalized support plan (PAP)
    The Actors Involved in the Schooling and Support of Gifted Students
    A. Who are the actors involved in identifying a gifted student?
        The family or the legal guardian of the student
        Identification by a psychologist
        B. Who are the actors involved in the school path of the gifted student?
        The role of the academic referent
        The role of the school principal or the head of the institution
        The specialized aid networks for students in difficulty (RASED)
        The role of the national education doctor
        The role of the national education nurse
        The role of external partners working with the gifted student
        The involvement of associations
    Conclusion

By reading the table of contents, you can see it is a guide for identifying, making class-level accommodations, and generally managing gifted children.

Parents interested in delving into the accommodation elements should refer to chapter 2, section B: "How to adjust and adapt the school curriculum?"

Let's look at this in detail since it concerns the teacher's qualification to supervise a gifted student, which is the focus of this article.

We find five types of accommodations: pedagogical differentiation, tutoring by adults, curriculum enrichment, unstreaming, and curriculum acceleration.

Pedagogical Differentiation

The text explains what pedagogical differentiation is: "Pedagogical differentiation can range from task adaptation to accelerated progression in one or more subjects based on the student's pace."

A very general statement, lacking detail and prompting many questions. What indicators determine if a task needs adapting? Why these indicators? How to ensure the analysis? In what manner? For what purpose? How is this task adapted and why? Similar questions can be asked about accelerated progression or evaluating the student's pace.

One thing is clear: even without precise elements, the success of this action depends mainly on the teacher's informed eye, how accurately they identify problems, and how deeply they explore the issue. We can imagine that different task adaptation types are explained in another document.

Tutoring by Adults

This is mainly for methodological problems. However, it warrants another article on which methodologies to propose in different situations and why.

Secondary benefits of tutoring are also mentioned, but they are not relevant to this article.

Curriculum Enrichment

This mainly involves offering enrichments in learning, categorized into three types with examples of what could be implemented. However, once again, nothing is indicated about specific indicators to be vigilant about to decide whether to propose type I, II, or III enrichment depending on the situation. Is the teacher able to understand what to do and why, and explain it to the parents when the time comes?

Unstreaming

It is explained that this allows great flexibility and should be implemented as often as possible. It involves having the student take certain lessons in another class to better align with their level.

Again, evaluating the student's skills and general level is crucial, and any error in analysis, deepening, or evaluation by the teacher will prevent unstreaming, even if it might have been appropriate.

Curriculum Acceleration

Different types of acceleration are presented, from simple grade skipping to cycle compaction and enrolling in a mixed-grade class. It is specified that this must meet the student's knowledge expectations, bringing us back to the question of skill evaluation by the teacher, which conditions this curriculum acceleration.

Three fundamental points are also highlighted: acceleration can be a response for some seemingly underperforming gifted students who may have disengaged from schoolwork; their actual level of academic achievement is often difficult to estimate and can differ from IQ-type evaluations; and it is necessary to anticipate grade skipping.

Conclusion

Therefore, we can confidently answer: The teacher is not trained through the Vademecum to evaluate the skills of a gifted student!

They are only trained to identify a gifted student in a class and are informed about five types of accommodations, but not to identify specific indicators in the student's work or to ask type-specific questions depending on the situations to deepen understanding and grasp the origin and reality of the problem or difficulty identified, and to bring relevant solutions.

There is absolutely nothing about indicators or evaluation methods to accurately define skills.

In a previous article, we discussed the French official Vademecum as the basic training offered to teachers. However, even when teachers read it, it offers nothing more than identification and various solutions without linking them to problem analysis and knowledge evaluation.

So, how does a teacher assess the knowledge of a gifted student (EHP)?

In a typical school setting, within a class of 25 or 30 students, for the teacher to distinguish between an error on an exercise, a delay, or a lack of organization, it is essential that they understand the specificities of gifted students. Moreover, the teacher must closely engage with the student's personality and inquire about what might have happened before diagnosing the student's knowledge or problems and proposing solutions, or dismissing those that could make a difference. This is the only way the teacher can adequately explain the situation, analysis, and solutions to the parents, ensuring that everything has a purpose and an objective.

As I mentioned in another article titled "Reflection on how to encourage the desire and commitment to work of gifted children", the fundamental problem is often the analysis itself. In this context, unfortunately, since the teacher is an authority figure, they are not in the best position to ask the essential questions for their analysis, which they likely have little practice in. These questions are necessary to get as close as possible to reality. I have already mentioned this before, and I will revisit some necessary points for understanding.

A teacher needs to be trained in questioning and sensitive to personality assessment. They must ask open-ended questions and establish a trust relationship with the student to encourage them to reveal the true nature of the situation.

Would a student spontaneously tell their teacher, "I didn't want to do the exercise because I've already done five like it," or "It was too easy, so I thought it wouldn't teach me anything"?

The result of an exercise can no longer be the sole measure of a student's knowledge or difficulties.

In the literature, including documents intended for teachers about gifted students, it is frequently noted that these students often do not understand certain implicit aspects, thinking the answer couldn't be that simple.

However, we cannot view everything through this lens.

Studies have shown that exercises that are too easy do not activate cognition.

It is necessary to assess the student's mindset, motivation, and the meaning they attribute to what they are asked to do.

The teacher must adopt a perspective different from the one they are accustomed to using with other students and their results or evaluations.

The teacher must be able to differentiate between the student's actual skills and what is shown in an evaluation. A gifted student may have perfectly understood and be able to manipulate a concept to solve a problem, and yet perform poorly or skip an evaluation.

If an evaluation indicates that the knowledge is there, no further questions arise.

However, if the evaluation seems to indicate a problem with knowledge, one cannot simply stop there with a gifted student. It would be a serious mistake to assume a knowledge problem without thoroughly investigating using other elements and indicators and without a phase of open and supportive questioning.

This is also noted in the Vademecum: "While acceleration of the school curriculum is almost exclusively reserved for students with remarkable academic performance, it can also be a response for some gifted students who seem less performing. Over time, these students may have disengaged from learning and/or from relationships with their classmates, thus limiting their participation in school activities."

These are among the factors that can lead to the misidentification of a gifted student who does not lack knowledge or skills but who, due to the simplicity of the tasks, has lost interest or no longer wants to make an effort to endure repetition, to name just a few scenarios.

This approach is reductive and can have significant consequences, especially in how the student perceives the system.

Is the problem with the student, their knowledge, their motivation, or the fact of giving a gifted student the same type of evaluation as others, knowing that they already know it and find it uninteresting, or an educational and evaluation system based on constraint?

We are not here to debate all this, but can we accurately evaluate a student without considering the context or their specificities?

Parents need precise information from the institution and must be able to understand what is concluded (and what will go into the student's file) regarding evaluations that may reveal a non-existent knowledge problem. But more importantly, what will be done based on these conclusions. We exacerbate the problem if we conclude that the student lacks knowledge and needs more exercises until "it sinks in" and they make no more mistakes, when the opposite might be needed, and the problem likely lies in the lack of meaning.

To conclude this article, there remains one more aspect to address, which will be elaborated upon later: The Stake.

What is the stake when you have a gifted student who does not have critical problems and follows a correct schooling path, whether they are at the top of the class or in the middle?

Why bother requesting and fighting with the institution to ensure it respects its support commitments and protocols?

The question of the stake seems fundamental to me for a gifted student, whether they are successful or not, even if in the latter case, daily situations may seem urgent, pushing the stake to the background.

Two central questions: Is the problem well-identified? Is the problem anticipated?

I think everything boils down to indicators, analysis, and identification of the problem, if there is one. Sometimes, the evaluation of knowledge is the main issue and problem, especially in primary school. For the teacher, it’s simple: if an evaluation shows many errors, then the knowledge is insufficient. You will then be told that these results are moderated by the teacher. Ask how, in what way, and what is ultimately concluded and recorded in the school file.

Let's take an example from primary school, where a teacher indicates that the child does not know the difference between a number and a digit. Question the child orally; if they respond immediately and without error (the words might not be the expected ones, but the concept is well understood), you will have your answer.

Ask yourself, if the child knows the difference, where does the problem come from? The child does not understand or cannot manipulate the concept? It’s so simple that the child makes no effort or doesn't care because they know they know it (or does not activate cognition, as neurologists say)? But then, if the teacher concludes that the child does not master this subject, is the decision made to have them work on it again? This might be totally counterproductive, perhaps leading the child to realize that the teacher cannot properly evaluate or meet their expectations and teach them relevant and intelligent things. In short, this underscores the importance of finely defining where the problem lies and whether there is a problem at all.

Without further details in the teacher’s evaluation, the parent may feel they must understand that if the child gets an exercise wrong, or several, the teacher concludes the child doesn’t know or cannot manipulate the concept. And that’s not necessarily the case.

I also think that if the teacher tells the child they believe the child hasn’t acquired the knowledge while the problem lies elsewhere, this simply discredits the teacher. It shows they do not know or understand, and the child loses trust and no longer believes in the value of what they do, the teacher’s analysis, or what they can learn from them.

In such a situation, it is crucial to avoid making constraint the only solution since we know that the relationship with the teacher is paramount to achieving results, not just for the gifted but for all children. This is related to the Pygmalion effect.

Returning to problem analysis, without precision and discussion among co-educators, what are the teachers basing their statements on? For relevant evaluation, it seems essential to observe and question the child about what is happening or has happened under the right conditions.

Another example applies to some gifted children who have problems with writing and spelling or are at least reluctant to improve.

The same types of evaluation problems are validated by experience in dictation.

Try the test!

The child spells words perfectly aloud in a game. The next day, you use the same words in a dictation, and it’s a disaster. Then two days later, test them on writing about their grievances or ideas on a topic they care about, and they make almost no mistakes on the reused words. Even if it’s not scientific or statistical, after discussion, the problem lies in the exercise of dictation itself. The child sees no point in it, has no desire, lacks meaning, and doesn’t make an effort, which depends on their state of mind and how the activity is presented.

Of course, in class, the context changes everything, but still, why do they not bother to reread their work when they know it will help them correct some mistakes?

Desire – Interest – Stakes: an inseparable triptych of a learning plan.

You may also notice that pleasing the teacher, dad, or grandma no longer engages them. And we know that for the gifted, this dimension of attachment is a real motivator. Therefore, we must question the causes.

In my opinion, the teaching team needs to properly evaluate the problems the child might face, limiting repetitive evaluations that do not accurately reflect their knowledge. They should report to the parents precisely and respond to requests for details so that actions can also be taken at home.

Another typical problem that can be identified by the teacher and then addressed in a particular way:

"We lighten the workload because we understand that organizing is difficult for him."

Here, the parent is forced to interpret, as we will see, the phrase is quite vague! They might understand that the child, having organizational problems (unspecified or unidentified) during class exercises, is therefore given fewer exercises than others because otherwise, they don’t have time to finish?

The parent can logically cross-reference with other information or elements, like this possibly causing mentioned slowness or that “lack of attention” might be the origin.

I extrapolate a lot… But what is really happening, what does such a phrase actually say about what is going on and the analysis explanation?

The parent sometimes feels when confronted with such statements, seemingly indisputable, that the teacher's word is conflated with a “divine word.”

The reality of such a phrase is that for the parent who does not know what the teacher is referring to and who must trust blindly, it does not allow for any analysis. As a parent, one needs precise information, always with the spirit of what we all understand from the institution’s desire for co-education.

Once again, we need to delve deeper! And for that, we must bring out an arsenal of questions to clarify the situation: Is it really an organizational problem? Didn’t they also face a question they couldn’t understand? Did they understand what was expected? Could the direct cause be slowness instead? What is the origin of this slowness? Is it due to disinterest, difficulty, or lack of knowledge, and in what way? Is the child simply blocking on the implicit as often happens? Is it related to desire? Is it related to repetition? What task is lightened and how? What does the teacher find complicated? In what way does the teacher consider it an organizational problem?

And I have deliberately limited the number of questions one could envisage to understand the situation and find a solution to a problem that may not even exist.

Have you ever been called by your child struggling with an exercise whose question was incomprehensible or called for interpretation? Certainly, and me too. Should we conclude that the child has a problem? Of course not.

One question should also concern you: faced with parents advocating for certain actions, is the teacher identifying false problems to implement solutions, by principle, that are not costly for them, the teaching team, or the institution, and that will solve nothing, perhaps even exacerbate the problem, just so the parents think things are being analyzed, implemented, and are satisfied?

Really, this question is central.

Because co-education implies understanding each other, and to understand each other, the minimum necessary, among other things, is to communicate clearly and precisely with a common frame of reference.

The evaluation and analysis of a problem might be perfectly clear to the teacher in this example, but you’ll notice I can pose a number of questions to refine understanding of the situation.

As a parent, you must ensure that it is not the system and its processes that generate problems that do not actually exist.

Is spinning wheels not also an attempt to divert reflection from the crucial element of learning that the institution struggles to create: desire?

In the face of desire, the institution, like parents swimming in good intentions and wanting to prepare their children for future life, might take the only stance left to them or adopt the only possible strategy, illustrated by a discourse of constraint and submission like “we don’t always do what we want in life.” Unfortunately, with a gifted child, such a discourse obviously cannot hold, or at least not in the long term, especially when the sense of duty cannot be genuinely applied to the task demanded. And I would go further, even if, above all, we must not question the system, practices, and enter the debate, we cannot simply pretend that it cannot come from the system and that the problem must necessarily lie with the child.

We must not confuse “life is not always fair” (which is evident) with “we don’t always do what we want in life” (which is unrelated and a matter of choice).

The fundamental problem is most often that of analysis. Unfortunately, in this context, the teacher being an authority figure is not the best placed to ask the necessary questions for their analysis, which they likely master very little, to get answers that come as close to reality as possible.

Do you think your child would spontaneously say to their teacher: “I didn’t want to do the exercise because I’ve already done five like it!” or “it was too easy, I thought it wouldn’t teach me anything”?

In conclusion, the parent must be able to analyze by gathering data from their child and indicate why, in their view, the solution is to:

• Minimize perpetual repetition,
• Minimize biased evaluations,
• Minimize hasty conclusions,
• Maximize enriching and motivating novelty in underemphasized learning within the institution,

I am currently preparing an article on the issue of early class advancement, but we naturally arrive at it here. When the teaching team cannot sufficiently complicate the learning and no cross-level work is done, the parent anticipating will inevitably have to consider this issue.

Regarding the question of class skipping or cross-level work, the institution sometimes responds: “It is out of the question” “Class skipping remains exceptional.”

However, this is part of the recommendations in documents given to teachers and officials as “training,” so the parent is entitled to ask for explanations.

Often, they are satisfied not to give you any reasoned explanation. We then enter the realm of “that’s the way it is,” and in the end, the only argument that seems relevant is considering that the interests of children in the next grade would be very different from theirs, and it is a way to “make them grow up” too fast. On the question of class skipping, I have a very simple view outside of case-by-case study: will this class skipping be a solution to boredom and desire? Without the conducive environment allowing the gifted child to see their interest and be a demander, it is not necessarily a good thing, especially for the child who will expose their difference to others or at least their “scholar” status.

Of course, it depends on contexts and the child’s birth date. A class skip does not have the same impact at the grade level if the child is at the beginning or end of the year.

That said, cross-level work can be a subtle way to test the solution of class skipping.

This is a rant for all the parents who are incredulous in the face of the institution’s proposals and management, which remains deaf and mute.

Every parent has expectations of the institution, some realistic, others unrealistic. However, can it be considered unrealistic when these expectations involve elements provided for in institutional texts? This is precisely the case for parents of gifted children. Provisions such as teacher training and accommodations are outlined, yet all too often, nothing is done.

Unfortunately, and as always, to achieve something, one must go to battle. This applies in all areas; you will not achieve anything through intelligent argumentation and a willingness to exchange ideas. To achieve, you must demonstrate and exert pressure, thereby generating conflict, even if you do not want to. Beyond any qualification, history shows that significant changes have occurred this way. You must initiate a revolution, be proactive, and tackle the problem head-on. Will the actions of a few parents here and there have a significant impact? Probably not. Nonetheless, if every parent demanded that the texts be respected, the institution's staff would surely understand that their efforts must be generalized. Today, for teachers, having a student with special needs in a class, and even more so a gifted student who "has everything to succeed" according to common perception, often seems like a chore.

Is this the perception that needs to be fought against? Is it one of the sources in the nature of evaluating problems or difficulties? It certainly is part of it.

In some contexts, the difficulties are very real, but in others, they are more subtle. So, should we mobilize when everything seems fine for a gifted child?

For the institution, it seems the central question is: why mobilize and for what real issue since all school and external indicators are green?

1) What should be the main expectations of the parent and why?

The problem lies in understanding the situation—who does what, who knows what, who envisions what, and why. In short, they should be able to understand.

However, and this is not contradictory, they should expect only one thing: to finally be able to trust and let things be, including educational team meetings to define the PPRE (Personalized Program for Educational Success) to address the real problems.

I think it is complicated to propose relevant solutions if the origin of the problem is not defined with certainty.

My analysis on this point is that the problem lies more in the lack of transparency and the multi-level communication gap among the stakeholders than in what might be considered insistent, annoying, unjustified, vague, or incomprehensible demands from parents.

The institution will be keen to talk to you about the concept of co-education, which should indeed be defined so that everyone's expectations are regulated.

Without definition, I do not precisely know how co-education should be organized or envisaged, but I imagine that communication between co-educators should have a predominant place, right?

Be vigilant about situations where the façade speech is inconsistent with reality, such as being asked to be in co-education while being left in the dark.

Can you be asked to trust when the institution does not respond to your requests for clarification and when you do not know the level of understanding of the problem related to an area that someone else manages on your behalf, or worse, admits not knowing, in the best-case scenario?

2) What should be your expectations for the well-being of your gifted child?

Be proactive as early as possible, stay open, and engage in a constructive, transparent, and clear dialogue on all these points and others that seem important to you. These elements, in my opinion, are very easy to implement in school and require little time investment compared to other classroom accommodations:

A. Differentiated work by level and/or skills or following certain subjects in another class. I believe the child should really be in demand, as it would be preferable to address repetition with different, creative, organizational learning through small group workshops, etc.

B. Addressing repetition/ease during class hours by offering exercises adapted to their real skill level without waiting for the child to make no mistakes, which is not an indicator. Replace repetitions with enrichments and deepening in areas of success (associated with: nourishing their intellect, exploiting their resources).

C. Limiting the normalization of processes and expectations (including evaluations). Encourage their autonomy, creativity, and use of intuition.

Even if desire is at the heart of the memorization process for all individuals, it is, I think, even more crucial for a gifted child. We must question to avoid fostering the association: school (learning) = constraint. Such an association would be very damaging. We must create meaning and support its importance with examples, which would also benefit others.

Without this, few will not start questioning this schoolwork, its importance, its impact, and will have a hard time working autonomously without supervision, especially boys.

Professional Orientation and the Role of Academic Performance: A Heresy

Should grades, your favorite subjects, or those in which you excel play a dominant role in your career orientation?

Let's go even further: should they be taken into account at all?

In the complex labyrinth of career guidance, the compass traditionally used to steer young people towards their professional future has been, almost unquestioningly, academic performance. This paradigm, deeply ingrained in educational systems and mindsets, considers grades, specific skills in certain subjects, and academic preferences as the primary indicators for mapping and guiding career paths. Yet, this approach, while reassuring in its simplicity and familiarity, raises critical questions about its relevance and effectiveness in today’s ever-evolving professional landscape.

At the heart of this issue lies a fundamental question: Do academic performances truly reflect an individual's potential, passions, desires, and future capabilities? This question casts doubt not only on the validity of using grades as the main criterion for orientation but also on the underlying philosophy of education and personal development. Indeed, by focusing almost exclusively on academic results, we risk neglecting essential aspects of individual development such as creativity, innovation, resilience, and, above all, the ability to evolve and adapt—skills that may one day be crucial for professional growth. With the emergence of AI, this is likely a reality.

Orientation based on academic performance translates to a worldview and career model that privileges linearity, predictability, and a certain form of determinism, much like those based on personality, as discussed in a previous article. In this model, students are often seen as vessels into which knowledge is poured, with the expectation that their professional future is somehow predetermined by their ability to retain and reproduce this information. However, this perspective is out of step with the contemporary reality of a professional world that values adaptability, versatility, and the capacity for continuous learning, including our ways of accessing information through computers, Google, and now AI. Thirty years ago, durable knowledge was undeniably necessary. Today, what is undeniably necessary is knowing how to find the right information, evaluate it, critique its sources, and use it operationally, whether for pleasure or to accomplish a remunerated task.

Moreover, focusing on academic performance risks excluding those who, for various reasons, do not conform to established norms of academic success but nonetheless possess valuable talents and skills. This exclusion is detrimental not only to these individuals but also to society as a whole, which is deprived of a range of talents and diverse perspectives, including creatives and the gifted, among others.

In this article, we delve into a critical analysis of career orientation based on academic performance, examining its limitations, implications, and exploring alternative approaches that recognize and value the richness and diversity of human abilities. Our goal is to demonstrate that career orientation needs to be rethought to become a more inclusive, dynamic, and adaptive process capable of effectively preparing individuals to navigate a complex and rapidly changing professional world.

The Intrinsic Limits of Academic Performance

The traditional approach to career orientation, largely based on academic performance, seems logical and objective at first glance. However, this method presents significant intrinsic limits that deserve thorough analysis. Academic performance, often measured by grades and standardized evaluations, is perceived as indicators of an individual's aptitude for certain careers. Yet, this perspective oversimplifies the complexity of human talents and ignores the multifaceted nature that contributes to an individual's development, including professional development.

The first major limitation of this approach is its reductionism. School grades, while useful for assessing certain academic skills, do not reflect the entirety of an individual's abilities. As Howard Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences highlights, individuals possess a variety of skills and talents that are not always measurable by traditional academic standards (Gardner, 1983). For example, a student may have exceptional leadership, critical thinking, or creativity skills that are not necessarily evaluated in the classic school framework.

Grades are also influenced by a multitude of external factors that can distort their representativeness as indicators of knowledge or personal or professional skills. Factors such as socio-economic background, family support, access to educational resources, and even the quality of teaching received play a crucial role in a student's academic performance (Sirin, 2005). Thus, grades may reflect these external conditions more than a student's true skills or interests.

Orientation based on academic performance also ignores the plasticity and evolvability of human development. Interests and skills are not static; they evolve with time, experience, and exposure to new environments and challenges. Studies have shown that professional interests and skills can develop and change throughout life, questioning the relevance of basing orientation decisions solely on early academic performance, or even, linking to the other article, on aspects of personality (Savickas, 2005).

Finally, this approach tends to exclude or undervalue non-academic skills that are essential in the modern professional world. Qualities such as emotional intelligence, the ability to work in a team, or cognitive flexibility, which are increasingly valued in various careers, are not always visible or measurable through academic results (Goleman, 1995).

The Danger of Early Determinism and Subjectivity

We fall here into the question of determinism, and Savickas was not the only one interested in this question. According to Super's career development theory (1990), an individual's interests and abilities develop and change at different life stages. Orientation based on early academic performance can unfairly limit an individual's prospects by not considering their ability to acquire new skills or develop new interests.

Orientation based on favorite subjects or performance in certain subjects can be extremely subjective. Students' academic preferences are often influenced by factors such as the quality of teaching, interactions with teachers, and family and cultural influences. This subjectivity is highlighted by Eccles and Wigfield (2002), who note that academic interests and preferences are often shaped by the expectations and values of a student's environment rather than by true affinities or aptitudes.

Strictly academic-based orientation tends to ignore or undervalue transversal skills, which are crucial in the workplace. Skills such as critical thinking, problem-solving, collaboration, and adaptability are often developed outside the strictly academic framework and are not directly measurable by school grades. These skills, essential for professional success, are overlooked in a system based solely on academic performance.

But of course, the evaluation of knowledge or skills based solely on a grading system exposes its inconsistency and inability to adapt to the needs of students, as well as the system and businesses. Today, to get into Google, you need far more personal qualities than just a good report card.

Alternatives to Academic Performance-Based Orientation

In the current context of career orientation, where the primacy of academic performance is beginning to be questioned, comprehensive alternative methods such as school and student coaching, and especially orientation coaching, prove crucial. This approach offers a more integrated and diverse perspective, focusing on personalization and considering all aspects of the individual.

Beyond grades and performance in specific subjects, this coaching focuses on a holistic understanding of students. It aims to uncover their true interests, deep aspirations, and intrinsic skills, often hidden behind academic results. This approach aligns perfectly with Kolb's experiential learning theory (1984), which emphasizes the importance of personal experience in skill and knowledge development. By focusing on aspects such as personal motivations, life goals, and interpersonal skills, coaching allows for a richer and more meaningful exploration of career options, helping young people align their career choices with their true identities, desires, and values.

Orientation coaching is a specialized extension of school coaching, focusing specifically on career choice support. This form of coaching goes beyond evaluating academic skills to explore areas such as personal passions, unique strengths, and long-term aspirations. It aligns with the principles of social constructivism outlined by Vygotsky (1978), which recognize that professional development is influenced by social and personal interactions, not just academic skills. By adopting this approach, orientation coaching helps individuals consider a broader range of potential careers, including those not directly related to their current academic performance. This method encourages young people to actively explore different paths, reflect on their experiences, and create career plans that also reflect their unique personalities and goals.

The benefits of a comprehensive coaching approach are numerous and varied. First, it allows students to receive guidance tailored to their individual needs and circumstances, rather than following a predefined path based on general academic criteria. This personalization contributes to better satisfaction and deeper engagement in career choices. Additionally, this method encourages the development of essential skills such as decision-making, critical thinking, and self-awareness, which are invaluable in the modern professional world. Moreover, coaching helps reduce anxiety and uncertainty related to career decisions, providing a supportive space where young people can freely explore their options without the pressure of traditional expectations.

This approach fosters greater equity by giving each individual the chance to explore and choose careers that align with their real interests and potential, rather than conforming to predetermined societal or academic expectations. Additionally, coaching can help, through 360-degree exploration, identify and develop hidden or undervalued talents, opening the way to more diverse and enriching professional opportunities.

Conclusion

Unlike the traditional approach of tests, assessments, and guidance that prioritizes grades and personality as the main indicators of professional determinism, orientation coaching takes into account a much broader spectrum of factors and elements. It values and considers transversal skills such as critical thinking, resilience, and creativity, often overlooked in standardized evaluations associated with RIASEC or MBTI. The coach should not assume that academic performance always faithfully reflects an individual's real capabilities, as motivation or desire are rarely the driving force behind their results in the third grade.

It is a method that empowers the student, considering that individuals' interests, passions, and skills are not fixed and can evolve over time, providing them with know-how and a way to approach their professional future that they can later revisit when new elements realign everything. By engaging in a process of continuous exploration and reflection, coaching helps individuals understand their own evolution and adapt their career choices accordingly. This flexible and dynamic approach is particularly relevant in a constantly evolving professional world, where the ability to adapt and reinvent oneself is crucial.

This openness takes into account not only skills and academic performance but also the personal, social, and emotional factors influencing career choices. This holistic approach is essential for helping individuals identify careers that correspond not only to their skills, tastes, and passions but also to their values, aspirations, and unique personality, as well as any other elements they consider important to them. It contributes to greater satisfaction and deeper engagement in the chosen career. By providing individualized support, it helps overcome the influence of society, education, and schooling as well as the socio-economic and cultural barriers that can influence career choices.

This type of coaching paves the way for more informed, diverse, and fulfilling career choices, thus contributing to the construction of a more relevant and adaptable professional future for all individuals. It is no longer about insertion but orientation.

References:

• Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences. Basic Books.
• Sirin, S. R. (2005). Socioeconomic Status and Academic Achievement: A Meta-Analytic Review of Research. Review of Educational Research.
• Savickas, M. L. (2005). The Theory and Practice of Career Construction. In S. D. Brown & R. W. Lent (Eds.), Career Development and Counseling: Putting Theory and Research to Work. John Wiley & Sons.
• Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional Intelligence. Bantam Books.
• Super, D. E. (1990). A Life-span, Life-space Approach to Career Development. In D. Brown & L. Brooks (Eds.), Career Choice and Development. Jossey-Bass.
• Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational Beliefs, Values, and Goals. Annual Review of Psychology.
• Passarelli, A. M., & Kolb, D. A. (2012). Using Experiential Learning Theory to Promote Student Learning and Development in Programs of Education Abroad. Student Learning Abroad.
• Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. Prentice Hall.
• Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Harvard University Press.