Gifted Learners - Gifted Education Communicator

Transcription

Identifying
Gifted Learners
Summer 2012 Vol. 43 No. 2
N at i o n a l A d v i s o r y B o a r d
Published by the California Association for the Gifted (CAG)
G i f t e d E d u c at i o n C o m m u n i c at o r
Acquisitions Editor
Managing Editor
Advising Editor
Associate Editors
Curriculum
Photography
Book Reviews
Departments
Technology Ideas
The Amazing Brain
Administrator Talk
Tech Tools
Web Watch
Common Core for Gifted Learners
Parent Talk
Design DIRECTOR
Illustrations
Margaret Gosfield
Karen Daniels
Barbara Clark
gosfield@cox.net
GECeditor@aol.com
clarkbj@earthlink.net
Beth Littrell
Dan Nelson
Chris Hoehner
bethlittrell@gmail.com
dan@dan-nelson.com
chrishoener@yahoo.com
Barbara L. Branch
Barbara Clark
Carolyn R. Cooper
Brian Housand
Carolyn Kottmeyer
Beth Littrell
James T. Webb & Janet L. Gore
Keir DuBois, BBM&D Strategic Branding
Jon Pearson
Ken Vinton
www.bbmd-inc.com, (805) 667-6671
CA G E x e c u t i v e C o m m i t t e e 2 0 1 0 – 2 0 1 2
President
President Elect
Secretary
Treasurer
Chair, Educator Representatives
Chair, Parent Representatives
Past President
Anna Williams
Joan Linsay Kerr
Dana Reupert
Judith J. Roseberry
Maryanna Gray
Marie Thornsberry
Deborah Hazelton
CA G OFFICE
Susan Seamons, Executive Director
9278 Madison Avenue, Orangevale, CA 95662
Tel: 916-988-3999 Fax: 916-988-5999 e-mail: CAGOffice@aol.com CAGifted.org
letters to the editor
Margaret Gosfield, Editor
3136 Calle Mariposa, Santa Barbara, CA 93105
Tel: 805-687-9352 Fax: 805-687-1527 e-mail: gosfield@cox.net
Letters should include your full name, address, telephone, and e-mail address. Letters may be edited for clarity and space.
Gifted Education Communicator ISSN 1531-7382 is published four times a year: Spring, Summer, Fall, and Winter. Opinions expressed by individual authors do not officially represent positions of the California Association for the Gifted. Advertising: For advertising rates and information, contact the CAG office at 916-988-3999 or visit the CAG website at CAGifted.
org. Submission of material: To submit articles for publication, send articles by e-mail to the editor at gosfield@cox.
net. All submissions will be given careful consideration. Photos and camera-ready artwork are particularly desirable.
The editorial staff reserves the right to edit all material in accordance with APA style and Gifted Education Communicator
policy. Reprinting of materials: Articles appearing in Gifted Education Communicator may be reprinted as desired unless
marked by © or reprinted from another source. Please credit Gifted Education Communicator and send a copy of your
publication containing the reprint to the editor. For electronic reprinting, please contact the editor for credit and linking
protocol. Back issues: Printed back issues may be purchased (if available) for $12.00 per copy including postage. To order,
contact the CAG office. Please note: GEC issues from Fall 2010 forward are available only in electronic format.
Ernesto Bernal, Ph.D., Consultant
San Antonio, TX
George Betts, Ed.D., Professor
University of Northern Colorado, Greeley, CO
Victoria Bortolusssi, Ph.D., Dean Emeritus
Moorpark College, Moorpark, CA
Carolyn Callahan, Ph.D., Professor
University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA
Barbara Clark, Ed.D., Professor Emeritus
California State University, Los Angeles, CA
Tracy Cross, Ph.D., Professor
College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, VA
James Delisle, Ph.D., Professor
Kent State University & Twinsberg, Kent, OH
Maureen DiMarco, Senior Vice President
Houghton Mifflin Co.
Jerry Flack, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus
University of Colorado, Denver, CO
Judy Galbraith, M.A., Author, Publisher
Free Spirit Publishing, Minneapolis, MN
James Gallagher,Ph.D., Senior Scientist Emeritus
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC
Julie Gonzales, Parent
Colorado Association for Gifted & Talented
Sandra Kaplan, Ed.D., Clinical Professor
University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
Frances Karnes, Ph.D., Professor
The University of Southern Mississippi, Hattiesberg, MS
Felice Kaufmann, Ph.D., Consultant
New York University Child Study Center, New York, NY
Jann Leppien, Ph.D., Professor
University of Great Falls, Great Falls, MT
Elizabeth Meckstroth, M.Ed., M.S.U.,Consultant
Institute of Eductional Advancement, Evanston, IL
Maureen Neihart, Psy.D., Associate Professor
National Institute of Education, Singapore
Sally Reis, Ph.D., Professor
University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT
Joseph Renzulli, Ph.D., Director
National Research Center on the Gifted & Talented, Storrs, CT
Sylvia Rimm, Ph.D., Director
Family Achievement Clinic, Cleveland, OH
Ann Robinson, Ph.D., Director, Center for Gifted Education
University of Arkansas, Little Rock, AR
Annemarie Roeper, Ed.D.,Consultant,
Roeper Consultation Service, El Cerrito, CA
Karen B. Rogers, Ph.D., Professor,
University of St. Thomas, St. Paul, MN
Judith Roseberry, M.A., Consultant
Fountain Valley, CA
Linda Silverman, Ph.D., Director,
Gifted Development Center, Denver, CO
Elinor Ruth Smith, Educational Consultant
San Diego, CA
Joan Franklin Smutny, M.A., Director, Center for Gifted Education
Northern Illinois University, Dekalb, IL
Robert Sternberg, Ph.D., Dean of Arts & Letters,
Tufts University, Medford, MA
Stephanie Tolan, M.A., Author, Consultant,
Institute for Educational Advancement, Charlotte, NC
Carol Ann Tomlinson, Ed.D., Professor
University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA
Joyce VanTassel-Baska, Ed.D., Professor Emeritus,
College of William & Mary, Williamsburg,VA
Sally Walker, Ph.D., Executive Director,
Illinois Association for Gifted Children, Roscoe, IL
James Webb, Ph.D., Consultant, President.
Great Potential Press/SENG, Scottsdale, AZ
CONTENTS
Summer 2012 | Volume 43 | Number 2
ISSN 1531-7382
DE PARTMENTS
Pa r e n t ta l k
5
How do we find Gifted Children?
James Webb & Janet Gore
photo by dan nelson
A d m i n i s t r at o r ta l k
Identifying
Gifted Learners
FEATURES
9
Best Practices in the Identification
of Gifted and Talented Students
Susan K. Johnsen
15
19
22
26
27
33
Twice-Exceptional Students: An Endangered Species
7
IDENTIFYING Students for Gifted Education Services:
Tips for handling the “Red Flags”
Carolyn R. Cooper
30
Fractions on a Number Line:
A Lesson for The Common Core State Standards
Identifying Appropiate Learning Tasks for Gifted Students
Beth Littrell
W e b W at c h
35 Identifying Gifted Learners
Carolyn Kottmeyer
Barbara Gilman, Dan Peters, Mike Postma, & Kathi Kearney
Technology Ideas for Home and School
It Takes a Village: Identifying and Providing Services
For Twice Exceptional Learners in the Elementary Grades
38 Khan Academy
Barbara L. Branch
Karen B. Rogers
Bright Beyond Their Years: What are Parents to Think?
Judy Galbraith
Recommended Standards for Gifted and Talented Education
California Department of Education
Issues of Identification and Underrepresentation
Barbara Clark
NAGC Teacher Preparation and Program/Service Standards
B OOK REVIE W S
41
2
4
Teaching ADVANCED LEARNERS
in the General Education Classroom
Edited By Christine Hoehner
From the Editors
Calendar of Conferences
Cover Photo by Dan Nelson
California Association for the Gifted 1
FROM THE EDITORS
Q
uick—what’s the number one frustration of local school
district coordinators of services for gifted students? The
Identification Process. This process is fraught with major
expenditures of time and resources and laden with emotional stress in the interactions with school personal as well as parents. Most coordinators I know would gladly eliminate this part of
their jobs if it weren’t so important! How else can we serve these
children if we don’t know who they are? Additionally, how will we
know what each gifted child needs in order to flourish at his or her
optimal progress? The identification of gifted children is every much
as important to these children as is the identification and diagnosis of children with learning disabilities. If gifted children are to be
appropriately served, we must identify them in thoughtful, wideranging, equitable, and efficient ways. This is no small task!
Leading the way in our feature article section is Susan Johnsen; Dr.
Johnsen has provided outstanding leadership at Baylor University in
Texas and with the National Association for Gifted Children—especially in identification and assessment of gifted children. Her article,
“Best Practices in the Identification of Gifted and Talented Students,”
provides a thoughtful look at the issues involved in identifying gifted
children along with guidelines for carrying out the process. She sums
up the process with three “must have” components:
•equal access to a comprehensive assessment
•qualities of procedures and assessment evidence, and
•representativeness of diversity in the gifted education program.
Dr. Johnsen’s article leads us into an area of diversity that is
often overlooked or omitted, namely, the identification of twiceexceptional (2-e) learners: those who are both gifted and have
learning challenges. They are often overlooked because their talents mask their learning difficulties, or omitted because school
personnel (and sometimes parents too) think it is more important
to focus on their disabilities rather than their strengths.
Summit Center in northern California specializes in helping 2-e
children and their parents receive the support and counseling they
need to become all they can. I met Dr. Dan Peters at the NAGC
conference in New Orleans last November; his immediate concern was that it is so difficult to get appropriate identification of
these children—they keep falling through the cracks—especially
in public schools. He and his colleagues, Bobbie Gilman, Mike
Postma, and Kathi Kearney have prepared their article, “TwiceExceptional Students: An Endangered Species,” to help bring
awareness of the needs of 2-e children to our readers.
Karen Rogers of the University of St. Thomas in Minnesota follows with a case history of one district’s efforts to better identify
and assess twice-exceptional learners. Dr. Rogers begins her article with, “ This is the story of one public school district that
has been able to nurture its twice exceptional learners in an ef-
2 Gifted Education Communicator Summer 2012
fort to improve academic achievement in
mathematics and reading/writing, intrinsic motivation to learn, and academic selfefficacy.” In her article,
“It Takes a Village: Identifying and
Providing Services For Twice Exceptional
Learners In the Elementary Grades,” she
describes the effectiveness of a group of
dedicated, hard-working, and inspired
teachers who make significant progress in their efforts.
We don’t often reprint articles in this journal; however, some
things haven’t changed and are worthy of repeating. In “Bright Beyond Their Years: What are Parents to Think?” Judy Galbraith provides answers to some of parents most asked questions including:
•I’m fairly certain that my preschooler is smarter than most of her
playmates. Do I need to do something about this? Or do I just let
her be a kid, as they say, and let nature take its course?
•Why do I need to discuss my son’s giftedness with him? He’s bright—
can’t we just leave it at that?
• What does exceptionally bright or gifted mean, exactly? I know my
child is advanced, but what specifically should I be looking for?
Finally, Barbara Clark’s earlier article, “Issues of Identification
and Underrepresentation,” identifies some of the main factors
cited when discussing the reasons why we have underrepresentation of culturally and linguistically different groups of children in
gifted education programs. These include:
•method of identification for gifted programs
•definition of intelligence and giftedness
•bias and prejudice of educators
Dr. Clark looks at these factors through the lenses of what she
calls the “discrimination theory” and the “distribution theory.”
She concludes with several “actions” that we can take to eliminate
underrepresentation of these groups in our programs.
In addition, we’ve included two guidelines for identification and
assessment as developed by the California Association for the Gifted
and the National Association for Gifted Children. We hope that
these articles and guidelines will provide useful tools for you in your
ongoing process of identification in your districts and homes.
Good wishes to all of you for a happy summer of recharging and
enjoying your worlds. In the fall we will be back with our annual
focus on “interdisciplinary studies.” This time we will be looking
at “social studies,” a favorite of mine since I was a history teacher
during all my years of teaching gifted students.
—Margaret Gosfield, Acquisitions Editor
W
hen my daughter was around 3 years of age I
started my Masters program in Gifted Education. I knew I did not want to be a teacher in a
classroom but I knew I needed the information
to best help her, and her then baby brothers.
You see, we already knew she was most likely gifted. Our
pediatrician told us. Random people told us. But even without other people mentioning her “brightness” we knew. Her
developmental learning curve was well ahead of “the norm;”
she started talking by about 7 months; her first word was not
mommy or daddy—it was anchor. Go figure. Amongst other
things, she could hold a good conversation by 1, and taught
herself to read by 3.
And frankly, her obvious intellectual growth at such a
young age scared me; it scared me enough so I was driven
to go for my masters because I knew I needed to arm myself
with more information. One of the first classes I took was on
Parenting Gifted Kids, taught by Robin Schader. During that
course, I asked a lot about identification and assessment. And
when I asked Robin, “When shall I get my daughter professional assessed?” she gave me an answer I’ll always remember:
“When you need it.”
As I’ve come to understand, identification without a specific purpose is not really that helpful. A generic label of giftedness does not truly give us anything of value. This is why
schools with certain programs identify in a specific way—
those students who meet the criteria for that particular program (whether it’s called gifted or something else) will be assessed as suitable.
Parents need to understand this. The entire point of assessment and identification should be to help us develop an
appropriate learning path for that specific child not because a
label is important. Parents and teachers need to have the right
information at their disposal at the right time. A solid identification process should help in the decision-making process
for a specific program or learning process. What it should
not do is leave parents and teachers with a “Now what do we
do?” feeling.
For some great resources and links to help you understand
how to best use test scores, observation, and other forms of
gifted evaluation, check out this issue’s Web Watch by Carolyn Kottmeyer. She’s put together an unparalleled combination of resources.
And if you’re a teacher or parent looking to enrich a gifted
child’s learning at home or to differentiate within a classroom
for gifted children, Tech Tools shows you how to easily use
Khan Academy in multiple ways.
In Parent Talk this issue you will
learn what a gifted child “looks” like,
what to look for, and why it is important to identify gifted learners.
For a fascinating read pertaining to
the upcoming common core standards,
read Fractions on a Number Line: A
Lesson for The Common Core State
Standards Identifying Appropriate
Learning Tasks for Gifted Students. In the article, author
Beth Littrel says:
“In this lesson, I have not talked about the grade-specific benchmarks for student understanding, but rather the
universal understandings that are the underpinnings of the
Common Core.”
Gifted identification is complicated. And because it is not
a cut and dried process there are a lot of “red flags” associated
with it. This issue we’re running a reprinted article for Administrator Talk because it gives easy-to-use Tips for handling
some of the issues associated with gifted identification.
It seems everyone is confused these days about how to
identify gifted children as well as exactly when to identify.
Whether you are a teacher or parent, arming yourself with the
proper information, such as the resources in this issue, will
help you make wiser choices for a gifted child.
And when did I finally have my daughter assessed? When I
needed it. Prior to her starting school I got a professional assessment by a psychologist who specializes in giftedness. The
information I learned about my daughter was invaluable in
regards to her areas of advancement, as well as the areas where
she was at age level. It told me what I needed to know to ask
the right questions, and in what areas I needed to make sure
she received advanced curriculum.
My daughter’s identification information gave me the clout
I needed to go to the charter school I wanted her to attend,
and convince them that indeed, skipping a few grades was
the best choice for my daughter. After all, we need to face the
fact that sometimes “this child needs more because her Mom
said,” just isn’t enough.
—Karen Daniels, Managing Editor
CALENDAR OF CONFERENCES
2012
October 7–9
Kansas Association for Gifted,
Talented and Creative
Confratute July 8–13, 2012
The Neag Center for Gifted Education
and Talent Development
Overland Park Marriot,
Overland Park, KS
kgtc.org
Storrs, CN
http://www.gifted.uconn.edu/confratute/
October 11–12, 2012
Wisconsin Association for Talented & Gifted
July 9–12, 2012
Israel Center for Excellence through Education
Blue Harbor Resort, Sheboygan,
Wisconsin Dells, WI
http://www.watg.org/
Jerusalem, Israel
http://jerusalem.icieconference.net
July 13–14, 2012
Supporting Emotional Needs of the Gifted
Milwaukee, WI
http://www.sengifted.org
July 16–17, 2012
Institute for Teachers of Gifted Youth
University of South Dakota, Vermillion, SD
http://www.usd.edu/education/gifted
July 19–21, 2012
International Dabrowski Congress
Denver, CO
http://dabrowski9.weebly.com
July 22–27, 2012
Gifted and Talented Edufest
Boise State University, Boise, ID
http://www.edufest.org/
July 25–27
California Association for the Gifted Teacher Institute
Santa Barbara, CA
cagifted.org
SEPTEMBER
September 23–24, 2012
South Dakota Association for Gifted Children
Best Western Ramkota Inn, Pierre, SD
http://www.sd-agc.org/
September 26–28
Mississippi Association for Gifted Children
October 12–13
New York State Advocacy for Gifted
and Talented Education
SUNY Oneonta, Oneonta, NY
http://agatenewyork.org/
October 14–16, 2012
Ohio Association for Gifted Children Annual
Hilton Columbus-Easton, Columbus, OH
http://www.oagc.com
October 15–16, 2012
Iowa Talented and Gifted Association
Airport Holiday Inn, Des Moines, IA
http://iowatag.org/
October 21–22, 2012
Virginia Conference on Gifted Education
Wyndham Virginia Crossings, Richmond, VA
http://www.vagifted.org/
NOVEMBER
November 15–18, 2012
National Association for Gifted Children Denver, CO
http://www.nagc.org/
Texas Association for The Gifted And Talented
CALIFORNIA
ASSOCIATION
FOR THE G IFTED
51st Annual
Conference:
MAGIC of the
MIND
February 15-17, 2013
Anaheim, CA
For details and registration
information, visit
www.cagifted.org
Up c o m i n g I s s u e s
of The Gifted
EDUCATION
COMMUNICATOR
Fall - Interdisciplinary Studies: Social Studies
Winter - Twice-Exceptional Gifted Learners
Spring - Giftedness for Life
Dallas, TX
http://www.txgifted.org/
MSU Riley Center, Meridian, MS
http://magcweb.org/
2013
September 27–28, 2012
Alabama Association for Gifted Children Advertisers Index
California Foundation for Gifted Education
13
California Association for the Gifted
February 15–17, 2013
CAG’s 51st Annual Conference
14
McWane Science Center, Birmingham, AL
http://www.alabamagifted.org/
Anaheim Marriott, Anaheim, CA
cagifted.org
GEC Advertising Rates
OCTOBER
National Association for Gifted Children
Ten Reasons for Joining CAG
October 5–7, 2012
Beyond IQ (BIQ) West Coast
Tentative, location to be announced
Indianapolis, IN
http://www.nagc.org/
Inside Back Cover
Back Cover
parent talk
By James T. Webb & Janet L. Gore
How do we find
Gifted
Children?
Can we tell just by looking?
photo by dan nelson
Y
es, when we have some education and training in what
to look for. Parents are generally good at recognizing
giftedness, though they tend to underestimate their
child’s ability. Teachers, particularly when they have special training in traits of gifted children, can select children who are
gifted, and these two approaches may be as good as formal testing
(Webb, Gore, Amend, & DeVries, 2007).
What does a gifted child look like?
Gifted children are very different from one another, and there
is no one “typical gifted child.” It is a myth that gifted children
are unusually smart in all domains; however, they are advanced
learners in at least one domain. Gifted children are frequently uneven in their development. They may be advanced in some domains (e.g., reading and other verbal skills) but not in others (e.g.,
math), or they may be advanced intellectually but not in social
and emotional areas, which sometimes can make identification
and school accommodations problematic. They might be talented
in the arts—music, dance, drama, visual arts—or mechanics. They
might be visual-spatial learners and not skilled at logical-sequential
learning. They could be gifted and simultaneously have a learning
disability, in which one condition masks the other. Also, there is a
wide range of ability within the population of individuals we call
“gifted,” and developmental milestone behaviors differ markedly.
Your child could be mildly gifted, moderately gifted, highly gifted,
exceptionally gifted, or profoundly gifted. Most gifted children
know numbers, colors, and can read by age five, but some gifted
children can do these same tasks by 12 months (Ruf, 2005).
What should we look for?
Foremost, we should look for intensity—intensity of emotion
(often including occasional tantrums or hysterics in young children) and intensity of interest, concentration, sensitivity, and an
active imagination that allows them to get “lost” in other worlds.
Also, parents describe their gifted children as having occasional
flashes of brilliance, unusual maturity, advanced vocabulary, unusual sense of humor, and intellectual curiosity about many things
or sometimes about just one thing. Gifted children differ from
other children, including smart children, in learning speed, application of concepts, level of interest, questioning style, concern
with fairness, emotional outlook, and more (Strip & Hirsch,
2011).
Parents can help by documenting and providing examples of
the child’s work, perhaps creating a folder or portfolio containing the child’s artwork at different ages, written stories or poems,
or photographs of complex Lego construction, rock or other collections, or other things the child has done that show advanced
development (Kingore, 2001). These portfolios can help teachers
understand the level of the child’s ability and thus appropriately
increase the challenge and rigor of the curriculum for that child.
Do gifted children sometimes hide their ability?
Yes, some gifted children learn early to downplay, hide, or otherwise camouflage their ability—e.g., purposely putting some
wrong answers on school papers—particularly if their learning
needs are not addressed or if there is peer pressure to not stand
out. If schoolwork is too easy, they may never learn how to study
or work hard at something and become habitual underachievers.
If that continues, it can be debilitating when they reach a place
(like college) where they need study skills.
Some gifted students become depressed over the difficulty of finding others like them or of not fitting in with their peers. If they can
see how the world should be and how it misses the mark, they are at
risk for existential depression, even at a young age. The more highly
gifted the child, the more likely the child is to feel different.
Is testing necessary?
If teachers could concentrate on what each individual child
can do and could modify curriculum accordingly, testing would
seldom be necessary (Matthews & Foster, 2009). However, that
is a difficult task to accomplish in a classroom filled with children. Ability and achievement testing can document what a child
can do, and in that sense, testing is helpful for identification and
for accurate educational placement. Testing helps discover not
only strengths, but it also helps to pinpoint learning disabilities
or learning weaknesses as well, so a plan can be put in place for
remediation in some areas and advancement in other areas. To accurately measure a gifted child’s ability, above-level testing may be
used; for example, a third grader is given a fourth- or fifth-grade
achievement test to see how well he does.
Tests should offer far more information than a single qualifying
score. The more highly gifted the child, the more the child will
be different from others and will need accommodations, so the
information gained from testing should be used to help plan the
child’s program; it should not be used just to qualify for admittance to a program.
Generally, there is no need to test a young child unless there
is a problem, such as with the child adjusting to school or finding friends. Most gifted children are happy until they encounter a
structured environment where they have to wait while others learn
things they already know how to do. In that case, a test score can
help parents and school personnel know whether some type of acceleration or other accommodation is appropriate for the child.
Why is it important to identify gifted learners?
In the years that we have worked with gifted children and families, we have seen many improvements in procedures and policies
to identify gifted children, which have led, in turn, to improved
services. Still, thousands of families nationally remove their talented children from public schools because those schools don’t meet
their child’s needs. Some send their children to private or charter
schools, and others choose to educate their rapid-learning children
at home. But what about those children whose parents can’t provide these alternatives? And what about the many children who
fall through the cracks because teachers and parents don’t realize
they are gifted?
Our hope is that with the new, more inclusive definition of
gifted children (NAGC, 2010) and with new understandings of
the specific learning needs of gifted children based on research and
experience (Gilman, 2008; Rogers, 2002; Ruf, 2005), school districts and state departments of education will create new, stronger
policies and procedures that promote and support differentiated
instruction and flexible pacing for rapid learners. Our world faces
increasingly complex problems; we need the learning strengths of
our gifted youth to help solve those problems.
Importance of parents
Because public school classrooms are currently organized by age
and not by what a child knows or can do, parents must become
their child’s advocate. Monitor your child’s progress. If your child
is spending 75% of her day on curriculum she already has mastered, learn all you can about gifted education and the many possible options for your child that could be available through your
current school. Then work with your child’s teacher to provide
materials and tasks that will keep your child engaged in school and
making continual progress in her learning. n
References
Gilman, R. (2008). Academic advocacy for gifted children: A parent’s complete guide.
Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press.
National Association for Gifted Children. (2010). Redefining giftedness for a new century: Shifting the paradigm. Retrieved from www.nagc.org/uploadedFiles/About_NAGC/
Redefining%20Giftedness%20for%20a%20New%20Century.pdf
Kingore, B. (2001). Using portfolios to document gifted learners’ talents. Retrieved from
www.bertiekingore.com/giftedassessment.htm
Matthews, D. J., & Foster, J. F. (2009). Being smart about gifted children: A guidebook
for parents and educators (2nd ed.). Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press.
Rogers, K. B. (2002). Re-forming gifted education: How parents and teachers can match
the program to the child. Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press.
Ruf, D. L. (2005) 5 levels of gifted. School issues and educational options. Scottsdale,
AZ: Great Potential Press.
Strip, C. A., & Hirsch, G. (2011). Helping gifted children soar: A practical guide for parents
and teachers (2nd ed.). Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press.
Webb, J. T., Gore, J. L., Amend, E. A., & DeVries, A. R. (2007). A parent’s guide to gifted
children. Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press.
JANET L. GOR E, M.A., M.Ed., has over thirty years experience in gifted education as a teacher, administrator,
counselor, policy maker, and parent. For three years she
was the State Director of Gifted Education in Arizona and
served on the Board of Directors of the Arizona Association for Gifted and Talented. She is co-author of two major award-wining books—Grandparents’ Guide to Gifted
Children and A Parent’s Guide to Gifted Children.
JAMES T. WEBB, Ph.D., the founder of SENG (Supporting
Emotional Needs of Gifted Children), has been recognized as one of the 25 most influential psychologists
nationally on gifted education. The lead author of five
books and several DVD s about gifted children, Dr. Webb
served on the Board of Directors for the National Association for Gifted Children. In 2010 he received the prestigious Ruth A. Martinson Past-Presidents’ Award from
the California Association for the Gifted.
Administrator Talk
By Carolyn R. Cooper
IDENTIFYING Students
for Gifted Education Services
Tips for handling the “Red Flags”
F
or many administrators, from Long Island to Los Angeles
and Butte to Biloxi, identifying students for gifted education services is a thorny issue. “Red flags” pop up immediately. Those I dealt with as a longtime administrator and
still hear about now, as a consultant, are the following:
• Few of us administrators have a thorough enough understanding of gifted students to get a handle on why we identify
them in the first place. What are we looking for and why?
• If a certain IQ score is a criterion for identification but a bright
student scores a few points below it, can’t other criteria offset
the difference? Smart kids aren’t always good test takers.
• How do we identify students we suspect are gifted but hide
their ability? They may need gifted education services, too.
• Our central office handles the identification process. If our
staff isn’t involved, how do we build their ownership in the
gifted education program?
Let’s examine briefly these “red flags” and try to make the identification issue less problematic for administrators responsible for
its management. Tips proven useful to other administrators may
help you, also.
RED FLAG #1: FIRST THINGS FIRST!
Do bright students really need special services? Won’t they make
it on their own? Can’t these smart kids simply do more work in our
general education curriculum? Answers: Yes. No. No—in that order.
These questions are often asked by individuals with good intentions but limited, if any, knowledge of gifted and talented
students—who they are, what their unique learning needs are,
and what kind of curricular challenge their abilities require. This
“disconnect” raises the first and most important red flag in the
identification process, as illustrated in the following conversation
with a principal.
During my doctoral internship in the then-USOE’s Office for
Gifted and Talented in Washington, DC, I had frequent conversations with administrators across the nation, calling for advice on
serving their gifted and talented students. One caller I remember
well was a frustrated principal. “We’ve identified all our gifted and
talented kids,” he explained, “but we don’t know what to do now.”
illustration by JON PEARSON
Gently, I asked, “For what purpose did you identify them, Sir?”
After pausing briefly, he replied, “Um, well, they need higher-level
thinking skills.”
His answer spoke volumes. He’d uttered words he’d heard but
that had no bearing on identification. (Thinking skills should be
embedded automatically in every discipline’s curriculum for all
students.) What his answer did tell me, however, was that he and
his staff had unknowingly skipped over the first rung on the identification ladder—the purpose of identifying their youngsters.
He hadn’t scheduled time for the staff to meet together to express their biases for and against bright people. Thus, he and his
staff hadn’t asked and answered the most basic question: “What do
we believe bright, talented individuals should accomplish in our
world?” Believing your most able students should learn to make a
positive difference in the world is vastly different from believing
they should be high school graduates at age 12, for example. The
purpose must be clear from the start. If you don’t know where
you’re going, any road will get you there.
Because this baseline discussion hadn’t taken place, no statement of beliefs had been drafted for staff consensus either. These
beliefs about bright people shape the programming your students
need in order to accomplish your stated purpose. This statement,
then, provides the foundation for developing and implementing
the program’s objectives: criteria for identifying its participants;
curriculum; teacher/facilitator’s responsibilities; and organization,
daily operation, and accountability.
Realizing his district, in effect, was asking its principals to build
a house without a foundation, the caller said he would share his
new information with other principals and his superintendent immediately. Further, he promised to assemble his entire staff so they
could express their views about bright students and, then, reach
consensus on a belief statement to govern their school’s services
for its high-ability students. The principal also understood why
the general curriculum wasn’t at all sufficient for bright kids—who
would not make it on their own—and why assigning them more of
the work they knew how to do already was the quickest route to
turning bright kids off to school and, too often, to their dropping
out altogether.
RED FLAG #2: IDENTIFYING THE
NOT-SO-GREAT TEST-TAKERS Although identification processes differ, defensible approaches
based on high-quality research require using multiple criteria to
find students whose high abilities need special programming. Both
quantitative and qualitative criteria often are listed as “acceptable”
indicators of these students’ need for learning experiences unlike
those in the general curriculum.
Quantitative criteria stipulated by your state’s department of education will likely include IQ and/or achievement scores. Note: Your
state may set a cut-off score students must meet to be considered
eligible for gifted education services. Your bright students who don’t
test well won’t meet this cut-off, of course, so you need to be sure
you use the other criteria in the state approved list that highlight a
student’s strengths. Gifted education programming, in response to
your staff ’s beliefs about your bright students, needs to capitalize
on their abilities, not their weaknesses. Always keep the purpose of
these services in the forefront of your decision-making.
Qualitative criteria, equally as valid as quantitative ones, are especially important in identifying bright students with less-than stellar test-taking ability. These typically involve a review of a student’s
portfolio of original products: audition of certain performancebased aptitude(s); accomplishments revealing the student’s abilities;
detailed recommendation of teachers and/or others knowledgeable
about gifted students; and evidence of the student’s reasoning and
use of creativity, as revealed in an interview with a gifted education
expert. All of these criteria need not be used, of course, but be certain that the ones you do use accomplish the purpose of validating a
student’s need for gifted education services.
Note, too, any alternate identification plans listed in your state
regulations for students outside your mainstream population.
These include youngsters with geographic, language, racial/ethnic,
socioeconomic, and other cultural differences; visual or hearing
impairments; learning disabilities; physical challenges; or behavioral difficulties that may indicate giftedness but are overlooked by
teachers not trained to recognize it in unusual contexts.
RED FLAG #3: FINDING GIFTED STUDENTS
WHO HIDE THEIR TALENTS During the past 25 years much has been learned about “twice
exceptional” (2e) students. These youngsters juggle two sets of
seemingly-contradictory characteristics: (1) their special needs:
limited reading skills; spelling and handwriting difficulties; short
attention span; poor organization skills; and low self-esteem, and
(2) the same characteristics of giftedness other gifted students
have. Exceptional in both camps, 2e youngsters generally have received remediation (for their disabilities) exclusively. Their gifts
and talents have been ignored.
Typically these are students who have been poor readers from the
outset. Being bright and sensitive, too, they are self-conscious about
their low performance in reading groups or on writing tasks. School
isn’t their favorite activity, and teachers see them as losers. From
early in their academic career they have chosen to hide their talents
from teachers, applying them instead at home and with other bright
kids with similar interests. Finding these students requires:
• knowing which fields they excel in
• using available research information to identify their talents
in those areas
The federally-funded Javits Project HIGH HOPES (1993- 96),
for instance, produced research indicating that gifted learning- disabled students excel in engineering, the sciences, visual arts and/or
performing arts— fields that accommodate naturally their gifted
characteristics as well as their special needs.
Twice-exceptional students must be identified by observers
trained to look for specific behaviors as students work on highly
advanced, timed tasks in one or more of the above-mentioned areas in which they are genuinely interested. (The Project HIGH
HOPES research lists the behaviors, provided by practicing professionals in each field that indicate particular talent in that field.)
Students rated highly by the trained observers in this “audition”
are then considered for a dually-differentiated curriculum that
balances their gifts with their disabilities. Incidentally, the quality
of these youngsters’ work stuns not only their teachers but their
parents, as well! Attending to their gifts is the key.
RED FLAG #4: BUILDING STAFF OWNERSHIP
IN GIFTED EDUCATION SERVICES Since your staff has reached consensus on the purpose for appropriate, research-based services for your bright students, buying
is underway already. We know initiatives that staff members help
develop are generally implemented more easily than others, so tap
both your formal and informal communication networks to build
staff ownership in these services.
First, have team, department, and grade-level leaders review
with colleagues—using a low-key approach, of course—the purpose of special services for your bright students. Next, staff must
understand the importance of knowing both the anticipated outcomes of each service their students are receiving and its student
performance expectations. Also, teachers need to show interest in
their students’ work while engaged in these services. This communication loop connects all parties involved.
Finally, you’ll have your dissenters, but deputizing them as “program advisors” can go a long way to making them believers, eventually. And, predictably, converts them to a cause to become its
strongest supporters! n
CAROLYN R. COOPER, Ph.D., is a retired assistant superintendent and served as the specialist in gifted education
with the Maryland State Department of Education for several years. A seasoned district-level coordinator of gifted
education in several districts throughout the country, she
was active for many years in the National Association for
Gifted Children as well as in state and regional organizations advocating for and supporting gifted and talented
youngsters. Most recently, she has completed a two-year
term as editor of the GAMbit, the quarterly publication of
the Gifted Association of Missouri. *Editor’s note: This article is reprinted from the Spring, 2007 issue
of Gifted Education Communicator, which was also devoted to the
topic of identification of gifted learners. The “red flags” are still there
and it is important that administrators be aware of them.
Best Practices
in the Identification
of Gifted and
Talented Students
ILLUSTRATION by JON PEARSON
I
n 2010, the National Association for Gifted Children
(NAGC) published a revised set of the Pre-K to Grade 12
Gifted Programming Standards (NAGC, 2010). Based on
the research literature, these standards were developed to
offer guidance to educators in establishing quality gifted education programs. The standards include not only evidence-based
practices, which were the focus of the 1998 NAGC Program
Standards, but also student outcomes. The inclusion of student
outcomes in the 2010 Programming Standards reflects not only
the national movement toward accountability but also provides
a way for educators to examine the effectiveness of their practices
in all aspects of gifted programming. Since this special issue of the
Gifted Education Communicator is focused on identification, I will
use the national standards to provide a context for recognizing
issues, student outcomes, and best practices in identifying gifted
and talented students.
Issues Underlying Best Practices in Identification Gifts
and talents are dynamic and are developed over time.
One of the issues that inform not only identification but also all
of the Programming Standards is that gifts and talents are dynamic
and are developed over time (NAGC, 2010). Since the Marland
report in 1972, which broadened the definition of giftedness, and
the 1993 National Excellence Report, which emphasized challenging students, gifted educators have begun to examine the developmental nature of gifts and talents. Theorists have suggested that
general intelligence, domain-related skills, creativity, environmental, and nonintellective factors such as perseverance, self-concept,
and mental health interact with one another in developing gifts
and talents (Gagné, 1999; Renzulli, 1978; Tannenbaum, 2003).
This developmental notion of giftedness is different than a traditional one that places more emphasis on the permanent nature of
intelligence and is likely to influence the assessments selected for
identifying students. For example, those that think intelligence is
innate and less changeable are more likely to believe that scores derived from intelligence tests are the best assessments to use in discriminating between students who are and are not gifted. On the
other hand, if educators believe in a more dynamic view, they are
By Susan K. Johnsen
more likely not only to collect information from traditional tests,
but also to collect information over time or in interactive learning situations to learn about students’ abilities and their developmental trajectories (Lidz, 1991; McCoach, Kehle, Bray, & Siegle,
2001). Since the programming standards related to identification
incorporate a more inclusive, developmental viewpoint, a broader
range and more dynamic set of assessments are recommended for
use in the identification process.
Giftedness is exhibited across all diverse groups.
Another issue that permeates the Pre-K-Grade 12 Gifted Programming Standards and identification procedures is that giftedness is exhibited across all diverse groups, which includes a broad
range of racial, ethnic, income levels, and exceptionality groups
(NAGC, 2010). It is well known that diverse groups of gifted students are underrepresented in gifted education programs (Daniels,
1998; Ford & Harris, 1994). Factors that appear to influence this
underrepresentation relate to the (a) students’ abilities to access
challenging learning experiences, (b) educators’ understanding of
the diversity of students with gifts and talents, (c) qualities of specific instruments, and (d) interpretations of assessments (Ford &
Harmon, 2001; Harris, Plucker, Rapp, & Martinez, 2009; Maker,
1996). Specific attention needs to be paid to ensuring that (a) definitions encompass a wide range of student characteristics, (b) environments encourage students to express diverse characteristics,
(c) teachers and parents have knowledge and positive attitudes
toward gifted education and about the diversity of gifted students,
and (d) assessments minimize bias and are fair to all populations
(Johnsen, 2012).
Early recognition of potential improves the chances
that gifts will develop into talents.
Related to both the developmental nature of giftedness and the
underrepresentation of students from diverse groups is the issue that
early recognition of potential improves the chances that gifts will develop
into talents. Students from diverse backgrounds who are identified
early and attend schools and classes for gifted and talented students
have higher achievement than those who are placed in general education classrooms with limited or no services (Borland, Schnur, &
Foundational issues in identification:
developing, diverse, early recognition, specific
Student Outcomes
Equal Access to
assessment
Quality Procedures
And Evidence
Representing
Diversity
Figure. 1
Wright, 2000; Cornell, Delcourt, Goldberg, & Bland, 1995; Johnsen & Ryser, 1994). Because school personnel do not have opportunities to observe each student’s talents and gifts in all settings,
families, peers, neighbors, and others who have contact with gifted
children may need to assist in the nomination process. To be effective, all educators need training regarding the range of characteristics within the gifted population, their role in developing gifts and
talents, the identification process, and the benefits for children who
participate in gifted education programming. Families are critical in
providing early exposure to a talent domain, special learning outside of school, external incentives and quality education (Subotnik,
Olszewski-Kubilius, & Worrell, 2011).
Students exhibit their gifts and talents not only
within a specific domain but also within an interest area.
A final issue is that students exhibit their gifts and talents not only
within a specific domain but also within an interest area (Johnsen,
2008). For example, a student with a talent in the scientific domain may have a particular interest in peregrine falcons. He may
not show his knowledge and skills on a traditional, standardized
grade-level achievement test or a school district benchmark test,
but might show his interest through teacher or parent observations or in products from independent research opportunities.
Each of these issues (e.g., gifts and talents are dynamic and developmental, diversity, early recognition, interest-specific gifts and
talents) is reflected in the three NAGC Programming student outcomes within the Assessment Standard (NAGC, 2010). The first
standard requires educators to create a classroom that differentiates
for students with gifts and talent so that all students have access
to a comprehensive assessment; the second, requires educators to
implement an identification procedure that is comprehensive, fair,
equitable, and incorporates multiple assessments; and the third,
requires educators to focus on diversity.
Student Outcome 1: Equal Access
to a Comprehensive Assessment
To ensure that all students have equal access to a comprehensive
assessment, educators need to develop classroom environments
that provide for individual differences. The first student outcome
states, “All students in grades PK-12 have equal access to a comprehensive assessment system that allows them to demonstrate
diverse characteristics and behaviors that are associated with giftedness” (NAGC 2.1, 2010). A differentiated classroom allows all
students opportunities to demonstrate diverse talents and gifts.
This classroom provides for individual differences in what students
know and want to know (e.g., the knowledge and skills they are
learning—the subject matter content), how quickly they learn the
content (e.g., pacing and rate of learning), how they learn (e.g.,
preference for types of activities), and the environment where
they learn (e.g., individual, small group, community) (Johnsen,
Haensly, Ryser, & Ford, 2002).
The placement of students in classrooms where teachers do not
believe in gifted education or in special education resource programs should not preclude the student’s nomination or need for
special programming in gifted education. Moreover, parents and
families need to be educated about the characteristics of gifted
and talented children and how to nurture these characteristics at
home. Without training, parents from minority or lower income
backgrounds, may be reticent to nominate their children for gifted
education programs (Louis & Lewis, 1992; Scott, Perou, Urbano,
Hogan, & Gold, 1992), and teachers may nominate only those
children who reflect their conceptions of giftedness—academically able, verbal, and well-mannered (Fernández, Gay, Lucky, &
Gavilan, 1998; Neumeister, Adams, Pierce, Cassady, & Dixon,
2007; Plata & Masten, 1998). Therefore, all educators, including
parents, need to be trained about the variation in characteristics of
students with gifts and talents and ways of developing classrooms
and other learning environments that differentiate for individual
differences (Johnsen, 2011a).
This emphasis on equal access is similar to the Office for Civil
Rights’ rules that emphasize disparity in referral rates, multiple
alternative referral sources, and training of those involved in the
identification process (Trice & Shannon, 2002). Meeting this
standard is critical in addressing all of the foundational issues and
in meeting the next two student outcome standards.
Student Outcome 2: Qualities of Procedures
and Assessment Evidence
The second student outcome states, “Each student is able to reveal
his or her exceptionalities or potential through assessment evidence
so that appropriate instructional accommodations and modifications
can be provided” (NAGC 2.2, 2010). The evidence-based practices
that support this outcome focus on the procedures, the qualities of the
assessment evidence, and the interpretation of multiple assessments.
Procedures
According to the first evidence-based practice, identification
procedures need to be “comprehensive, cohesive, and ongoing”
(NAGC 2.2.1, 2010). To be comprehensive and cohesive, identification procedures in the entire K-12 program need to be aligned
with one another and address programming options in all domains
(e.g., math, science, social studies, English/language arts, visual and
performing arts). For example, if the school district serves students
who are gifted in math at the secondary level, then those students
with potential in this domain should also be identified at the elementary level as well. In addition, performance on assessments at
the elementary level should predict performance at the secondary
level and be of equivalent difficulty levels so that students are able
to make transitions from one grade level to the next. Moreover, assessments need to be ongoing. Not all children have similar educational opportunities and may not demonstrate their potential until
they have access to challenging curriculum or a special teacher who
has preparation in gifted education. Once they experience the challenge, they are able to show their gift or talent.
Qualities of Assessment Evidence
Specific qualities of assessment evidence mentioned in the
evidence-based practices include the use of multiple assessments that are qualitative and quantitative, dynamic, equitable, and technically adequate.
Multiple assessments. Multiple assessments are used to provide a more comprehensive view of the student’s behaviors across
settings. These assessments need to be aligned to the characteristics of the students and available programming. For example,
assessments to identify students in the fine arts would be different
from assessments that might be used to identify students in science. Assessments also need to be selected carefully so that not
only a variety of behaviors within a domain are sampled but also
multiple sources of information are included. No one test, or one
source, can provide all the information about a student. Multiple
sources such as parents, teachers, students, and peers provide a
variety of perspectives about a student’s gifts and talents since no
single source is able to observe a student in all contexts (Coleman
& Cross, 2005). In addition, if the majority of students are from
minority groups or special populations (e. g., English language
learners, low income), then different types of assessments might
need to be considered such as those that are nonverbal or linguistically-reduced.
Qualitative and quantitative. Qualitative assessments use
words to describe a student’s strengths and weaknesses whereas
quantitative assessments use numbers. Using both qualitative and
quantitative assessments provides a broader description of students’ gifts and talents and provides different types of information
(Ryser, 2011b). An intelligence test uses standardized, controlled
procedures, and provides information regarding a student’s potential in relationship to other students. On the other hand, a portfolio allows both the teacher and the student opportunities to select
artifacts that might best represent the student’s talents in more
authentic settings. However, when numbers are applied to qualitative assessments, the qualitative assessment becomes a quantitative assessment and loses its power in providing more information
about the student (Ryser, 2011b). When quantitative assessments
are used such as achievement tests, they need to have enough ceiling or be above grade level so that students are able to show what
they know. If not, students who are gifted in a particular domain
may appear to perform similarly to students who are on grade level
since there is more error in the upper end of a scale.
Dynamic. To determine potential, teachers can use dynamic
assessments in the classroom where the teacher plans learning
experiences, observes the student’s interaction with the task, and
then scaffolds instruction to understand the student’s academic
strengths and weaknesses (Swanson & Lussier, 2001). To examine
abilities and discover potential, the tasks need to be novel, problem-based, and require complex strategies (Geary & Brown, 1991;
Kurtz & Weinert, 1989; Scruggs & Mastropieri, 1985).
Equitable. Special care needs to be taken to ensure that assessments minimize bias and are fair in identifying students from all
groups. Tests or assessment procedures are biased if they differentiate between members of various groups on some characteristic
other than the one being measured. For example, an assessment
in math might be biased if it measures reading ability more than
mathematical problem solving. When reviewing quantitative,
standardized tests, educators need to make sure that (a) norms are
representative of the national population, (b) linguistically-loaded
items are limited when testing student who are English learners,
(c) items discriminate equally well for each group, and (d) item
content minimizes bias (Johnsen & Ryser, 1994; Ryser, 2011a;
Salvia, Ysseldyke, & Bolt, 2007). Content bias can be reduced by
using performance-based items, pantomimed instruction, practice
items, untimed responses, abstract reasoning and problem solving,
novel items, and nonverbal items (Castellano, 1998; Jensen, 1980;
Joseph & Ford, 2006; Van-Tassel-Baska, Feng, & Evans, 2007). In
some cases, a school district may want to contact an expert in test
and measurement to develop local norms if the school district’s
majority is a minority.
Technically adequate. Professional organizations have established standards to ensure that tests are reliable and valid for their
intended purposes (see American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council
on Measurement in Education, 1999). Reliability is defined by
consistency within the assessment, over time, and across raters.
Validity represents how well the assessment measures what it’s
supposed to measure. Resources are available to assist educators
in examining the technical qualities of assessments so that they
might make informed decisions (see Robins & Jolly, 2011, and
Buros Institute of Mental Measurements [http://www.unl.edu/
buros] for test reviews).
Interpretation of Assessments
Once information is gathered from technically sound assessments, the data need to be interpreted by those who are familiar
with the characteristics of gifted and talented students, particularly
those from special populations, and gifted education services. The
committee also needs to have psychometric knowledge and understand different types of scores such as raw scores, standard scores,
percentile ranks; standard error of measurement; and the limitations of assessments (Johnsen, 2011b; NAGC, 2010). Extremely
high, rigid cut-off scores on individual assessments should not be
used because they do not consider the error in assessments. (For a
more complete discussion of scores and error in assessments, see
Johnsen, 2011b). The committee also needs to understand that all
assessments have limitations and may not sample all of the behaviors that might show a particular student’s strengths. Data needs
to be presented in a format so that the information from each
assessment is available to the committee and shows each student’s
strengths and weaknesses. The committee should take care in (a)
not weighting one assessment more than another (quantitative receive more weight than qualitative), (b) using only standard or
index scores when comparing performance across tests, (c) considering the error in measurement, and (d) considering best performance as an indicator of potential.
Student Outcome 3: Representing Diversity
The final student outcome in the area of identification states, “Students with identified needs represent diverse backgrounds and reflect
the total student population of the district” (NAGC 2.3, 2010).
Along with the selection of assessments that minimize bias, educators
need to develop policies and procedures that foster equity. Some practices have often limited the inclusion of special populations.
• First, exclusive definitions that focus on a narrow band of behaviors are less likely to identify students who manifest their talents
in a variety of ways; therefore, it is helpful to identify students
who have talents in all areas of the federal definition and use
cut-off scores that are more inclusive (Passow & Frasier, 1996).
• Second, the over reliance on traditional tests often prevents the
referral of students who are at-potential (Ford & Harmon, 2001;
Maker, 1996). Studies indicate that minority students perform
better on nonverbal, problem solving, and performance-based
types of assessments (Pierce et al., 2007; Van-Tassel-Baska et al.,
2007; VanTassel-Baska, Johnson, & Avery, 2002).
• Third, bias may occur in the process of referral because of educators’ misconceptions about children who have disabilities,
who are economically disadvantaged or who are English learners (Johnsen & Ryser, 1994; McCoach et al., 2001; Plata &
Masten, 1998).
• Finally, educators’ attitudes may influence not only their referral but also their ideas about who should be served in gifted
programs (Johnsen & Ryser, 1994). Given high stakes testing,
teachers often look at areas that need to be remediated rather
than talents that need to be developed. Extensive training needs
to occur to help educators (a) overcome negative attitudes toward special populations of gifted students, (b) develop environments where all students are able to show their potential
talents, and (c) value multicultural perspectives (Kitano & Pedersen, 2002).
Summary
Student outcomes and evidence-based practices in the 2010 NAGC
Programming Standards focus on three areas of identification:
• equal access to a comprehensive assessment
• qualities of procedures and assessment evidence, and
• representativeness of diversity in the gifted education program.
In developing equal access, educators need to create environments
where gifted students are able to show their individual strengths. Similarly, parents need to learn their role in developing their children’s
talents. The identification process itself needs to be comprehensive,
cohesive and ongoing and use multiple assessments from a variety
of sources that are qualitative and quantitative, dynamic, equitable,
and technically adequate. Educators need to be trained in how to use
and interpret a variety of data. To increase diversity within the gifted
education program, best practices indicate that definitions of giftedness need to be more inclusive, nontraditional tests need to be used,
and educators need to be trained so that they accept a broader view of
what characteristics constitute giftedness. Standards in identification
are informed by the views that gifts and talents need to be identified early, developed over time, and exhibited across all diverse groups
within domains and specific interest areas. When educators embrace
these perspectives, more students who need supports and services in
gifted education will be identified. n
REFERENCES
For a complete list of references for this feature, please see page 42
of this issue.
SUSAN K JOHNSEN, PhD, is professor in the Department of
Educational Psychology at Baylor University where she directs the PhD program and programs related to gifted and
talented education. She is editor of Gifted Child Today and
serves on the boards of Gifted Child Quarterly, Journal for
the Education of the Gifted and Roeper Review. She is the
author of Identifying Gifted Students: A Practical Guide(2nd
ed). She is past president of The Association for the Gifted
(TAG), Council for Exceptional Children and past president
of the Texas Association for Gifted and Talented (TAGT). She
has received awards for her work in the field of education,
including NAGC’s President’s Award, TAG’s Leadership
Award, TAGT’s President’s Award.
Support Gifted Education in California!
Our mission is to make a positive difference
in the lives of gifted children and youth
by generating funds to support research
and development, scholarships, and gifted
education projects. All funds will be distributed
to meet the goals of the foundation.
The Foundation generates funds to support:
• Research and development of Gifted
Education curriculum
• Scholarships for students and teachers
• Classroom grants to encourage innovation
• Creation of an endowment to perpetuate
the future of gifted education in the state of
California
9278 Madison Avenue
Orangevale, CA 95662
916-988-2909 — phone
916-988-5999 — fax
Foundation@CFGE.org
CAG’s 51st Annual Conference
Magic of the Mind
February 15-17, 2013
Anaheim Marriott Hotel
Optional Pre-conference on Friday, February 15th
with Demonstration Classrooms!
Plan now to attend this wonderful conference with over 150 workshops and featured presentations.
TEAM discounts available for TEAMS of 5 or more from one school or district.
Featured Presenters include:
Carolyn Callahan, University of Virginia
Richard Cash, Bloomington, Minnesota Public Schools
Marcy Cook, Math Consultant
Hall Davidson, Discovery Education
Brian & Angela Housand, Technology Consultants
Sandra Kaplan, University of Southern California
Sally Reis, University of Connecticut
Joseph Renzulli, University of Connecticut
Robin Schader, Parent Keynote Presentation
All events will take place at the Anaheim Marriott Hotel.
University credit offered by UCI, UCR, & USC.
Discount Disneyland tickets available for purchase.
Registration will open in September. Early-bird discount through 12/31/12.
$295 for CAG Members, $395 for CAG Non-Members
Unlocking Potential and Reaching for Excellence
CAG’s Northern California Symposium for Educators and Parents
Saturday, November 3, 2012
American Canyon High School, Napa, CA
Keynote Address by Sandra Kaplan, Ed.D.
• Learn strategies that unlock potential in ALL students while encouraging advanced students to soar
• Over 40 workshops on hands-on classroom differentiation strategies that support the new Common
Core State Standards, including sessions specific to elementary, middle, and high school educators,
and techniques specific to teaching science, math, language arts and social studies
• Special sessions for school administrators
• Special sessions on serving gifted English Language Learners and other underserved populations
• In-depth workshops on parenting gifted children: Intensity, creativity, advocacy, meeting social/
emotional needs, solutions to parenting dilemmas, and bringing out the best in our children.
Register online or download the registration form at www.cagifted.org
Twice-Exceptional
Students
An Endangered Species?
T
he identification of gifted students with coexisting disabilities—the Twice-exceptional (2e)—has always been
problematic. Such students send mixed messages to both
parents and teachers. Those with specific learning disabilities reason well and grasp concepts quickly, but academic skills lag
behind. Savvy teachers may recognize them by their contrasting
abilities and inconsistent performance, or view them as “bright
but lazy.” Gifted students with AD/HD may struggle with organization and present a pattern of high-test scores, but grades lowered
by failure to turn in homework. Classroom focus may be an issue. They may be identified and helped with organizational skills,
or deemed unqualified for services because their abilities are too
advanced. Similarly, gifted students with autistic spectrum issues
may struggle with social anxiety and overstimulation, but their
adequate learning skills may dispel teacher concerns. Children
with both AD/HD and Asperger Syndrome may need accommodations to develop advanced capabilities, but may be overlooked if
achievement is not stellar.
Sadly, many 2e students are missed when conflicting symptoms
are not explored. Two very different outcomes are possible. Early
identification and interventions for twice-exceptionality may
eliminate years of frustration and permit 2e children to develop
impressive potential. Conversely, a failure to identify twice-exceptional challenges and offer help may predispose a talented child
to being undereducated and underemployed. Perhaps most damaging is the emotional ramification of appearing lazy and being
blamed for real, albeit subtle, weaknesses throughout one’s education.
A 2011 review of research, “Empirical Investigation of Twiceexceptionality: Where Have We Been and Where Are We Going?”
By Barbara Gilman, Dan Peters,
Mike Postma, & Kathi Kearney
(Nicpon, M. F., Allmon, A, Sieck, B., and Stinson, R. D.) notes
generally increasing acceptance in education of the existence of
twice-exceptionality, but also the necessity to diagnose it through
comprehensive assessment. Thorough individual assessment by
psychologists and other relevant specialists is necessary to separate
strengths from weaknesses, and determine the degree of relative
deficits—keeping ability in mind. Discrepancies between high
scoring abstract reasoning ability and lower scoring processing
skills and academic achievement clarify that a child is gifted with
learning disabilities, rather than just average. Weaknesses discovered in areas such as sensory processing, auditory processing or
visual processing help to further document and explain the reasons for a student’s struggles. Such information is critical to determining the need for intervention and tailoring interventions to
specific disabilities in children who are cognitively advanced.
Changing the Rules for Disability Identification:
From Relative to Absolute
Services to twice-exceptional students maintained slow but
steady progress in school districts prior to the reauthorization of
federal special education law in 2004. Twice-exceptional instructional approaches were developed and some full-time programs
for twice-exceptional students were launched. Progress was made
possible by the fact that specific learning disabilities were diagnosed through readily available comprehensive assessment by
school psychologists and other specialists, based on the presence
of significant score discrepancies between ability and achievement.
A student qualified if his or her academic achievement was not
commensurate with ability—a relative performance requirement
assuming achievement should approach ability. (This discrepancy
can no longer be required for eligibility, but can be used.)
Following on the heels of No Child Left Behind, which was
designed to reach children who were not meeting minimal, standardized goals of achievement, the new Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEA 2004) introduced an absolute performance requirement into the process
of determining Specific Learning Disabilities. Children are now
first evaluated by a Response to Intervention (RTI) process in
the classroom, which seeks to locate students performing below
average and provide levels of increasingly targeted interventions.
Those children who subsequently need additional help are referred
for special education and other services. However, many gifted/
learning disabled students are initially missed by RTI because they
score in the average range due to strong compensation.
Additional complications have arisen with RTI. While parents
can directly request a special education evaluation, there is the
increasing consensus (especially in debt-ridden states) that RTI
should replace comprehensive assessment, and such evaluation is
becoming more difficult to obtain. In addition, the RTI model has
become very popular among gifted education advocates because
it holds the promise of integrating interventions and accommodations for twice-exceptional students—and by extension, gifted
children without disabilities—into regular education programs. If
Verbal Comprehension (VCI)-132 (gifted, 98th percentile)
Perceptual Reasoning (PRI)-119 (high average, 90th percentile)
Working Memory (WMI)–110 (high average, 75th percentile)
Processing Speed (PSI)-100 (average, 50th percentile)
Annie’s Full Scale IQ score lacked meaning due to an over twostandard-deviation discrepancy between gifted verbal reasoning/
language skills (VCI) and speed on paper-and-pencil tasks (PSI).
Annie’s General Ability Index score (GAI), summarizing the reasoning portions of the test, was 129 (97th percentile). Her individual subtest scaled scores ranged from the 99.6th percentile in
abstract verbal reasoning (Similarities) to the 25th percentile in
Coding (visual-motor speed/handwriting), a range of 10 scaled
score points—over three standard deviations. This discrepancy
suggests a child who experiences frustration when her hands
cannot keep up with her fine mind. There were significant relative lows in vocabulary, reasoning with visual abstract patterns,
and non-meaningful auditory memory, suggesting auditory and
visual processing weaknesses. This is a classic 2e profile.
• Woodcock-Johnson-III Tests of Achievement
BRIEF READING-107 (average, 69th percentile)
BRIEF MATH-117 (high average, 88th percentile)
BRIEF WRITING-87 (low average, 20th percentile)
We would expect Annie’s achievement scores to approach her
“Some gifted students will appear average to avoid standing out from their peers.
Others may habitually refuse to perform if the level of challenge in the classroom
is perceived as too easy for them.”
an RTI team can create needed interventions for children with
disabilities, why can’t it also modify curriculum for advanced, gifted students? However, high hopes for RTI’s success with gifted
and 2e children must be tempered by the fact that its use is largely
voluntary, mandated by law only for children performing below
grade expectations.
Further complicating the situation for 2e students, some states
are adding additional low achievement requirements (e.g., 12th or
5th percentile) on classroom assessments of reading, writing, spelling, or math for children to qualify for special education services.
The ramifications of moving to absolute performance criteria
to diagnose learning disabilities in gifted students are alarming.
Moreover, to base eligibility for services for AD/HD, autistic spectrum, etc, significantly on performance—as is being done in many
schools—simply cannot be justified.
“Annie”
Let’s consider a gifted child with learning disabilities through
both comprehensive assessment and absolute performance. Annie
left school in 2nd grade to homeschool because classroom struggles
with reading and writing caused significant loss of self-esteem.
Comprehensive testing revealed the following:
• Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Fourth Edition
Annie earned these Composite/Index scores:
IQ scores, for example, for Brief Reading (107) to more closely
approximate Verbal Comprehension (132). However, Annie’s
reading scored 25 points lower (over 1.5 standard deviations).
Brief Writing (87) was 45 points lower (3 standard deviations).
This is the pattern of many 2e children with reading disorders
who have accompanying problems with written composition
and spelling. Annie scored at the 19th percentile in Writing
Samples and 26th percentile in Spelling.
Specialist evaluations diagnosed visual processing, sensory processing, and auditory processing weaknesses—a combination
not uncommon in children with dyslexia—for which Annie was
undergoing therapies. As these had not resolved her reading/
writing difficulties, reading therapy would likely be needed.
Response to Intervention, which seeks to locate children performing below grade level, did not identify Annie as a student in
need. Her test scores, which clearly suggest a twice-exceptional
child, found her to be below average (90) only in writing (87).
She was missed through RTI, and had she been identified and
offered interventions, services would have been discontinued
once she reached the average level. Parents can request comprehensive assessment for special education, and services may be
available to aid writing, spelling or reading—based on relative
weaknesses. However, in states imposing a low absolute crite-
rion, children such as Annie no longer qualify.
Twice-exceptional Students—What Teachers Can Do
The 2e child presents an extraordinary dilemma for any educational setting, especially those faced with continued budget shortfalls and staff reductions. Ideally, comprehensive assessment will
locate such students and guide teachers in targeted interventions
and accommodations. However, in the absence of adequate assessment and trained specialists, what can teachers do?
• First, realize and recognize the differences between high
achievement and innate ability. Some gifted students will appear average to avoid standing out from their peers. Others
may habitually refuse to perform if the level of challenge in
the classroom is perceived as too easy for them.
• Second, understand that twice-exceptional students compensate for their disabilities with advanced reasoning, and the
combination of their strengths and weaknesses may be puzzling. Learn to detect the subtle clues of a 2e student’s weakness. Look for capable learners who lack the skills to organize,
complete, and submit work. Consider whether the absence
of social skills, as is prevalent with Aspergers Syndrome, is
disguising a student’s true intellectual capacity. Social anxiety can prevent the 2e child from participating in classroom
activities, even inhibiting the ability to think properly. Rec-
include a dyslexic gifted child in the advanced language
arts group to benefit from the higher level content and
literature study, while accommodating for reading or writing needs. Include the child with advanced mathematical
reasoning in the high math group, but allow the use of a
calculator for dyscalculia.
What Schools Can Do
Schools can play a dynamic role in identifying and educating
twice-exceptional students. Have professional, knowledgeable
staff available to advocate for 2e students, train other classroom
teachers on the nuances of 2e characteristics, and encourage the
use of multiple assessments to diagnose both the strengths and
weaknesses of the child. Allow parents the option to obtain outside
testing to further clarify a child’s needs. Finally, make Response to
Intervention resources available to twice-exceptional students performing well below their potential in one or more areas, regardless
of absolute performance level.
What Parents Can Do
• Trust your instincts about your child! While you may not know
why your child is struggling or how to help, you do know
when something is not right. You recognize when your child
“Twice-exceptional children are typically diagnosed by complex scoring profiles.
The absolute level of performance is not a key factor. A child thus diagnosed with a
learning disability has the right to receive an individualized learning plan.”
ognize children who exhibit sensory weaknesses: the inability
to see or hear correctly, or the tendency to overstimulate with
bright lights, loud talk, or particular seating arrangements.
Acknowledge those students who show flashes of brilliance
but underachieve. Do they struggle with sound/symbol relationships, math facts or spelling, but power through activities
using contextual clues and extraordinary effort? Are they
capable but refusing to write? High performing except when
timed? Do they demonstrate high verbal abilities but have difficulty with calculation? All such indicators suggest the need
for further diagnosis.
• Third, avoid the temptation to view lower-than-expected
achievement as a motivational issue. Most 2e children want
to do well. Viewing them as “lazy” or “irresponsible” leads
to even higher levels of anxiety and/or frustration. Some 2e
children will become self-critical to the point of inertia, refusing to participate in any classroom activity in which they
do not feel successful. Realize the importance of your support to the 2e child.
• Fourth, every 2e child has the best chance for success when
taught first to his or her strengths, with accommodations
offered secondarily (as gently as possible). Teach at the
child’s conceptual level, then accommodate. For example,
is unduly frustrated, exhausted, irritable, anxious, underperforming, unengaged in learning, and/or disliking school. A
parent’s concern that a child is underperforming for his or her
ability is a critical indicator of the need to explore learning,
processing, and developmental issues, and either rule out or
address them. If someone tells you your 2e child is just average, don’t hesitate to disagree!
• Share concerns with your child’s teacher or support team. Work
collaboratively with the RTI committee. If sufficient clarification
of problem areas and appropriate services fail to materialize in a
timely manner, look further. Because comprehensive assessment
is so important, consider either private testing or assessment
through your school. If you choose the latter, make a request
for such in writing (not email) to your school’s special education
department. Include your permission for the testing in your letter. The school must determine what testing needs to be done in
“all areas of suspected disability,” and has 60 calendar days (unless
your state regulations specify a different timeline) to determine if
your child is eligible for special education services. Keep in mind
that a 2009 Supreme Court Decision found the public schools
liable to pay private school tuition for a child whose needs were
not adequately assessed or addressed (see Dixon, S. G., Eusebio,
E. C., Turton, W. J., Wright, P. W. D., & Hale J. B., 2011).
Conclusion
Discrepancies between reasoning strengths and weaknesses in all suspected
areas can and should be used to determine whether a gifted child has a learning
or processing issue (the 2006 clarification of IDEA 2004 allows this). Twiceexceptional children are typically diagnosed by complex scoring profiles. The
absolute level of performance is not a key factor. A child thus diagnosed with
a learning disability has the right to receive an individualized learning plan—
provided state laws don’t introduce stumbling blocks. If classroom accommodations are sufficient, a Section 504 Plan can be created.
The larger question remains: What happens to twice-exceptional students missed by RTI and rendered invisible by a host of new regulations not
planned with them in mind? What alternatives do parents have who cannot provide private comprehensive assessment and therapeutic interventions? Court challenges and new Office of Civil Rights rulings may help 2e
Online Resource Guide
Final rules on the implementation of IDEA 2004. (2006, August 14).
Retrieved from United States Department of Education Federal Register,
Rules and Regulations: 71, 156, 46647, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/
FR-2006-08-14/pdf/06-6656.pdf.
Dixon, S. G., Eusebio, E. C., Turton, W. J., Wright, P. W. D., & Hale
J. B. (2011). Forest Grove School District v. T.A. Supreme Court case:
Implications for school psychology practice. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 29(2), 103-113. doi: 10.1177/0734282910388598.
Retrieved from http://ospa.wildapricot.org/Resources/Documents/JPA
%20Dixon%20et%20al.%20Forest%20Grove%20v%20TA.pdf
Foley Nicpon, M., Allmon, A., Sieck, B., & Stinson, R.D. (2011)
Empirical Investigation of Twice-exceptionality: Where Have We
Been and Where Are We Going? Gifted Child Quarterly 2011
55(1), 3-17. Originally published online 13 October 2010 doi:
10.1177/0016986210382575 http://gcq.sagepub.com/content/55/1/3.
Learning Disabilities Association of America (2010). The Learning Disabilities Association of America’s white paper on evaluation, identification,
and eligibility criteria for students with specific learning disabilities. Retrieved
from http://www.ldanatl.org/pdf/LDA%20White%20Paper%20on%20
IDEA%20Evaluation%20Criteria%20for%20SLD.pdf.
Musgrove, M. (2011). A Response to Intervention (RTI) process cannot
be used to delay-deny an evaluation for eligibility under the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Retrieved from United States
Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services website: http://www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/
memosdcltrs/osep11-07rtimemo.pdf.
U. S. Department of Education. (2007). Building the Legacy: IDEA 2004.
Q and A: Questions and answers on response to intervention (RTI) and early
intervening services (EIS), January). Retrieved from http://idea.ed.gov/
explore/view/p/%2Croot%2Cdynamic%2CQaCorner%2C8%2C.
Wrightslaw, Twice-exceptional Children: Gifted Students with Disabilities http://www.wrightslaw.com/nltr/09/nl.0922.htm.
children one day regain their status as gifted students
with disabilities, eligible for assistance to derive a free
and appropriate education. It is our responsibility to
make the pendulum swing back sooner than later. n
Barbara (Bobbie) Gilman is Associate Director of the non-profit Gifted
Development Center in Denver, which
specializes in the assessment of gifted
children, with and without disabilities,
for educational planning, advocacy and
parenting. She consults with parents
worldwide and is a popular speaker. Bobbie trains testers in the intricacies
of gifted assessment, and has been
active in test development with major
testing companies. She wrote Academic Advocacy for Gifted Children:
A Parent’s Complete Guide and Challenging Highly Gifted Learners (for
teachers). She chairs the National Association for Gifted Children’s Assessments of Giftedness Special Interest Group.
DAN PETERS, Ph.D., licensed psychologist, is Co-Founder and Clinical
Director of the Summit Center, specializing in the assessment and treatment of gifted, talented, and creative
individuals and families. He is also
Co-Director of Camp Summit for the
Gifted, Talented, and Creative. Dr.
Peters speaks regularly at state and
national conferences on a variety of
gifted issues. He consults with GATE
and Special Education Departments, and trains and consults with
teachers and parents about understanding, teaching, and raising
gifted children. Dr. Peters serves on the Supporting the Emotional
Needs of the Gifted (SENG) Editorial Board and is Associate Chair of
the National Association of Gifted Children’s (NAGC) Assessments of
Giftedness Special Interest Group.
MICHAEL POSTMA, Ed.D., is the Executive Director for Metrolina Regional
Scholars Academy, a school for highly
gifted students, in Charlotte, North
Carolina. Dr. Postma holds an Ed.D.
in Educational Leadership, an M.A. in
Gifted Education, and a B.A. in History.
Michael and his wife Julie, have four
children including two who have been
diagnosed with Asperger’s Syndrome.
KATHI KEARNEY, M.A. Ed., is the founder of
the Hollingworth Center for Highly Gifted
Children, a national resource and support
network for exceptionally gifted children
and their families. She has worked with
gifted children as a teacher and administrator in a wide variety of settings, urban
and rural, in public, private, religious, and
home schools. Kathi is a recognized expert
on homeschooling exceptionally gifted children. An excellent diagnostician, she works
primarily in New England.
It Takes a
Village
Identifying and Providing Services For
Twice Exceptional Learners in the Elementary Grades
photo by dan nelson
T
his is the story of one public school district that has been
able to nurture its twice exceptional learners in an effort
to improve academic achievement in mathematics and
reading/writing, intrinsic motivation to learn, and academic self-efficacy. In fact, it is the story of one school, an urban
academic magnet school for gifted children, within a very large
Midwestern district that collaborated in a project that would train
its teachers to work with these children, carefully search for them
by examining all the information they could find on all 1,024
students in the school, and carefully collect student growth data
over the course of three years. It is a story of success. And it is the
story of a “village.”
Finding Twice Exceptional Learners
The story began in the spring of 2009 when the school “village” showed up at the first steering committee meeting of the
newly funded Javits project, Project 2Excel, at the University of St.
Thomas. The school principal, social worker, two special education specialists, the curricular/instructional coach, and the gifted
specialist attended that day, making it clear that they were all in
with both feet. Although the project itself would involve four
school districts with very different demographics, it was stipulated
that each district could make its own decisions about who the
experimental and control teachers would be in the project, who
would participate in the identification process, and how growth
data would be collected. And, true to form, each of the four districts took very different approaches to this identification process.
This story, however, is about the school that did it “the best”!
The first major activity to be completed that spring was to de-
By Karen B. Rogers
velop an identification protocol to “find” twice exceptional learners—that is, those who were gifted but also presented educators
with four general categories of special exceptionality:
• specific learning disabilities
• emotional/behavioral disorders
• autism spectrum disorders
• attention deficit disorders
Based on previous research in the field, it became important
to use individual IQ data in addition to other instruments. In
the case of this school for which children qualify by high scores
on the Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test, it meant providing each of
the potential twice-exceptional learners with an individually administered Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children–IV. Children in
the school who had already been referred for or had qualified for
special education services had this test in their files. For them,
educators needed only to look for discrepancies among the four
index scores on the test. The rest came through a referral process
organized by this village.
First, third grade teachers that fall were asked to nominate children who did not seem to be “thriving” in their classrooms, or
about whom they had concerns. Each of these nominated students was subsequently tested, with special attention given for evidence of disability or disorder rather than just plain underachievement, perfectionism, or issues with family dysfunction, poverty,
or cultural pressures. To this were added the nominations of the
instructional coach/gifted specialist who, in demonstrating various lessons in classrooms, would notice such issues as distraction,
anxiety, withdrawal, hyperactivity, or other nonproductive behaviors in her whole classroom interactions.
The most effective identifier of all, however, in this village was
the school nurse. Paradoxically, many of the parents, whose children had qualified for the gifted program, did not want the school
to know about other issues, and therefore these issues were not to
be found in the student files. The nurse, however, was aware of
every child who might be on medication for anxiety, depression,
attention deficit disorders, or showed up at her door on a regular
basis; likewise, she was aware of siblings in the school who were
diagnosed with special needs even if the third grade sibling was
not formally identified as such.
The “village”, then, at this school found their twice exceptional
sample by pooling all the data they collected from a variety of
perspectives and resources. In all, 16 children were verified as
twice exceptional learners in this third grade class, representing
approximately 14% of the upcoming fourth grade class of gifted
learners who would be in Project 2Excel. In the second year of the
study, a similar process was conducted for all grade levels, 2–8, in
the school and a similar percentage was found in the early grades,
with slightly higher percentages found in the latter grades with
this identification protocol. The overall prevalence, when all data
were verified using additional instruments and checklists specific
to disability or disorder areas, was found to be approximately 20%
of this “homogeneous” population of gifted learners presented
with some special needs exceptionality. It quickly became clear
that Project 2Excel had a lot of work to do in this school!
Nurturing the Teachers
The plan for this project included five goals, and with identification protocol set, there were still four goals to be implemented.
The second goal was to provide support and professional development for the “experimental” teachers who were assigned for the
fourth and subsequently fifth grade classrooms. There was a fivepronged training put in place:
1. on-line certification in twice exceptional education in six
graduate level tuition-free courses
2. a materials budget to purchase special equipment, books, materials that are effective with twice exceptional learners
3. monthly in-service training sessions on practical topics
such as assistive technology, child profiling, and social
skills training
4. budget for individual planning and writing time for twice
exceptional strategy development
5. bimonthly classroom observations and feedback from the
project director and managers
Again, each of the four participating schools could choose how
they would use their budgets, although all were expected to participate in the certification training.
The school with its village perspective quickly carved out its
plans for how to proceed once the children were in the classroom
setting. All certification coursework was on-line in virtual meeting
rooms that met 1–2 times per month. The group of educators who
decided to take this training included the assistant principal, the
social worker, one of the two special educators, four experimental teachers (4th and 5th grade), and the instructional coach/gifted
specialist. The school had made a commitment that instead of including potential teachers for the grades beyond grade 5, that two
of the teachers would “loop” into grade 6 to provide continuity
for these children. Because of this decision, it was possible, given
the limited funds of the grant to train the larger team rather than
classroom teachers alone.
In between online class times, the group met voluntarily as a
study group, collaborating on their projects and products for the
class, and making meaning of the overwhelmingly large number
of materials on the subject of twice exceptionality. Their writing
and planning time budget was used on a weekly basis to bring
forward the details of each child, profiling each one and making a
joint plan for addressing the needs of each, using Baum’s strategy
of addressing exceptionality issues through each child’s strengths
and talents. The village decided to forego individual writing time
in favor of working as a team to “figure out” the needs of each
identified twice exceptional learner.
The actual implementation of these profile plans, then, became
a village project plan—who would come in during math time
to help this child stay focused? Who would provide Yoga Calm
time for the small group who were overwhelmed or stressed out
on a frequent basis during the day? The coordination and teamwork planned by this group working together was remarkable,
to say the least. The materials budget for the group was spent
in the first year on alterations they could make to the physical
environment of the classroom and to the physical comfort of
the twice-exceptional learners in those experimental classrooms.
Mutedly colored parachute cloth covers were sewn for the florescent lighting in the classrooms, weighted blankets and fidgets
were made for children to use when they felt stressed and needed
to calm down, yoga balls replaced some chairs, and pacing lanes
were created by the rearrangement of desks and tables for those
who needed to get up and walk around when trying to stay focused on teacher presentations.
Although the monthly in-service trainings were optional—
teachers could come (and the school would be paid for their substitutes for these day-long sessions)—the educator team in this
school did not miss a single one. They came as a group, participated as a group, and spent time both during and after these sessions adapting and applying the strategies presented to their own
setting. Consequently, when project personnel came to visit the
classrooms, it was almost immediately observed that the strategies
taught, the materials budget used, and the on-line training provided were being used by the experimental teachers and reinforced
by the team that supported their work with the students.
Nurturing the Twice Exceptional Learners
in Project 2Excel
Pre- and post-data collection was an important part of this
research project. This meant that the 16 learners needed to be
brought together outside of their regular classroom to take tests of
achievement in mathematics and reading/ language arts [out-oflevel Iowa Tests of Basic Skills Abbreviated Version (ITBS)], intrin-
sic motivation assessments [Children’s Academic Intrinsic Motivation Inventory (CAIMI)], and measures of self-efficacy (Harter
Self-Perception Inventory). For children with twice exceptionality,
the testing process can be stressful, even when additional time and
a calm testing environment can be provided. These sessions became “banana bread sessions.” The children would be provided
with slices of banana bread as they completed each of the required
assessments. Needless to say, great quantities of banana bread were
consumed at each testing session.
Likewise, school team members not including the classroom
teachers, worked along side of the project director and managers
to assist the kids in staying focused on completing the assessments,
finding quiet spaces in the library or parts of the testing room, and
monitoring the length of the banana bread breaks. The children
seemed to look forward to these banana bread sessions across time!
One could state that assessment was differentiated for these learners in the complexity of the measures themselves, the atmosphere
and conditions (location, time allowances, seating) under which
the testing took place, and in the children’s investment in the test
sessions. They knew they were “helping” the researcher in finding how their minds worked and that their job was an important
one. They asked regularly about what we were finding and how
we were “helping” their teachers. They saw themselves as part of
the village!
The special education resource room in this school became a
place where identified twice exceptional children in the two experimental classrooms could do writing tasks or research projects
when the stimulation in their regular classroom became too overwhelming for them to be able to function and focus. The resource
room had several computer notebooks available, co-writer programs, and other assistive technology devices that these learners
could use to complete their classroom projects, in addition to access to the social worker and special educators who were housed
there. With a quick nod from their classroom teacher, the children
knew they could go to the resource room to use the programs and
technology housed there.
It was eye opening to watch many of these twice exceptional learners come to take responsibility for and “enjoy” writing
projects over time, when they had initially seen the organizing
of longer term projects involving writing as “painful.” Across the
two and a half years for which this project was funded, several of
these students learned to self-advocate for what they needed to
complete classroom project requirements without the classroom
teachers or village team members directly telling them what to do,
step-by-step. They learned to negotiate and ask for the help they
needed to get their work completed. And their pre- and post- assessments of achievement on state tests scores and achievement
measures (MAP scores, ITBS scores), academic self-efficacy (Harter Self Perception Inventory) and academic intrinsic motivation
(CAIMI) grew concomitantly!
Lessons Learned About Twice Exceptional Students
And Their Teachers
Lesson 1. It takes more than a single classroom teacher or a
single special educator to identify a child who is twice excep-
tional. The social worker, the school nurse, the gifted teacher,
the principal or assistant principal all have additional perspectives on what is intervening in a child’s capability to “thrive”
in a gifted setting. What is particularly of concern though, is
how one can figure out whether a child is truly “thriving” in
a more heterogeneous setting. As James Webb has told us in
his work, twice-exceptional children may be performing at an
“acceptable level” because their gifts are supporting them, but
certainly not having their gifts fully developed. In this case, the
gifted magnet school made it easier to find twice exceptionality
than is usually the case.
Lesson 2. A classroom teacher cannot provide the services
and strategies a twice-exceptional child needs on a daily basis
alone. A plan that involves other members of school staff is
critical to fully addressing the needs of such a child. Unfortunately, a strategy for stress release or attention refocusing often
has a short shelf life for these kids. Jump roping in the hall will
work for a couple of weeks, for example, and then a new stress
reliever will need to be put into place.
Lesson 3. In this project the prevalence of twice exceptionality, when it includes autism, learning disability, emotional/
behavioral disorders, and attention deficit issues, was approximately 20% of the identified gifted population. And among
this 20% even if two of the expected six members of one’s 30child classroom (calculated on this prevalence) were 2X/2E,
the degrees of severity could vary greatly. What that means
is that a large number of strategies need to be available for
teachers to use. There will not be a small set of strategies that
will work across all exceptionality areas, let alone within one
exceptionality area. The more we learn about twice exceptionality, the more it becomes evident that this is going to be difficult for teachers to manage. And, although it may be easier
to manage this in a gifted self-contained setting, it will never
be very easy.
To leave on a positive note, however, some excellent protocols for identification and strategies for managing twice exceptional issues were developed in Project 2Excel. You are invited
to take a look at the project website and download the teaching
strategies developed by the teachers in our project, the parent
resource training manuals to help support the parents of twice
exceptional learners, and to imbibe in the research and literature of the field via the annotated bibliography you will find
there. For more information about the project and the materials available, visit the Project 2Excel website at www.stthomas.
edu/project2excel n
KAREN ROGERS, Ph.D., is a Professor of Gifted Studies
in the College of Applied Professional Studies at the
University of St. Thomas in Minneapolis, Minnesota,
where she has taught and conducted research since
1984. She received one of seven Javits grants in late
2008 for a five year grant to train teachers and provide
classroom support for twice-exceptional elementary
learners. For the past year she has been closing down
the project prematurely due to government de-funding
of all Javits programs.
Bright Beyond Their Years
What are Parents to Think?
By Judy Galbraith
John was driving to the store with his son, Lars. “Dad,” Lars asked, “if there’s no air in space,
how does the sun burn?” “You don’t need oxygen for a nuclear reaction,” John responded. “Oh,
that’s right,” said Lars. “I forgot.” Lars was 4.
M
any parents have stories about their kids that involve disarming or amusing
questions, but there is something about the questions asked by exceptionally
intelligent children that stop us in our tracks. It’s questions like the one above,
that go beyond why the sky is blue, that cause parents to look at their child in
a new light. (How does a 4 year old know about nuclear energy, for example?) Could your
son or daughter be exceptionally bright? How do parents begin to answer that whopper of
a question?
The definitions of exceptional intelligence are many and varied, and they can elicit very
emotional responses. What do you think of when you hear the label gifted and talented?
Genius? Highly intelligent? The truth is, there is no “right” answer to this question, and the
labels certainly mean different things to different people. Chances are you’re reading this
because you suspect that your child or a child you know may be gifted. You’ve observed how
she interacts with her same-age peers and have noticed that there are marked differences in
your child’s vocabulary, artistic ability, or grasp of advanced concepts. Perhaps you’ve been
told by a caregiver or teacher that your child is ahead of others in her daycare or school setting—or quite the opposite, that she seems detached and bored, which may be a sign that
she already knows the material being presented.
be some!) from family members, peers, and teachers, your child
is likely to feel awkward, alone, or even odd.
We know that nature determines our genetic makeup, but
nurturing shapes our outcome as well.
“By learning as much as you
can about giftedness, you’ll be
in a better position to learn how to
support, encourage, and advocate
for your child.”
As you’re wondering if your child may indeed be exceptionally
bright, you may also be wondering if you should do anything
about your child’s intelligence level. In my work of more than
20 years with gifted children, teens, and their parents, I firmly
believe that it is the parents’ responsibility to recognize their
children’s abilities, positively embrace the giftedness, and forge
an appropriate educational path together with the child.
PARENT QUESTIONS I’m fairly certain that my preschooler is smarter than most of
her playmates. Do I need to do something about this? Or do I
just let her be a kid, as they say, and let nature take its course?
During a trip to the bookstore with her parents, Jessie, 3 1/2,
pulled a book from the shelf and started reading it aloud. Her
parents had no idea that she knew how to read.
In presentations to thousands of parents of gifted kids from
around the country, parents, often shyly, approach me with
such questions as, “If my preschooler is reading, should I have
her tested to see if she’s gifted?” Or, “My son has an incredible
memory and his reasoning drives my husband and me nuts.
What do we do to keep him challenged but also not let him
talk us down?”
It’s worth noting that while parents may seek out information in articles or books authored by experts in giftedness, they
are almost afraid to discuss their child’s exceptional ability with
others, even someone who specializes in the subject. I believe
that exceptional intelligence, regardless of type, is nothing to
hide. By learning as much as you can about giftedness, you’ll
be in a better position to learn how to support, encourage,
and advocate for your child. As a parent, it’s important to take
the lead in keeping your child’s learning path appropriate for
his or her ability level. And just as important, help your child
positively embrace his or her abilities. If you don’t do that, your
child is left alone to sort out how to feel about his or her abilities. When there are confusing mixed messages (and there will
When Kendall was 3, her mother found her sitting on the sofa,
looking thoughtfully at her feet. “What’s up?” her mother asked.
“I’m tying my shoes,” the little girl replied. “Really? I didn’t know
you could tie your shoes.” “I can’t tie them with my fingers,” Kendall said. “So I’m tying them with my thoughts.”
Why do I need to discuss my son’s giftedness with him? He’s
bright—can’t we just leave it at that?
I’ve interviewed and surveyed thousands of gifted kids. Many
have said that their parents rarely discuss giftedness with them. As
a result, some children concluded that it was something secretive
and therefore bad, which increased their fears of being different.
It’s been documented by many experts in the field that virtually
all exceptionally bright children know they are different by the
time they are five or six years old. This awareness of difference can
bring many positive results, but it can also turn into feelings of
being strange or “weird” if the differences are not acknowledged
and discussed openly.
When kids hear misconceptions of giftedness (such as the myth
that if you’re gifted in one area, you’re gifted in all areas, or if you’re
gifted you can make it on your own), intellectual power and talent
become more of a burden than a blessing. No matter how mature
a child might seem at the time, the wrong messages result in making gifted kids want to downplay, deny, or hide their giftedness.
This is why your support is so vital. Children will decide early on
if they think their gifts are positive or negative. If they believe in
themselves and know they have the loving support of their parents, their positive self-esteem will travel with them into middle
school (when gifted kids often struggle the most in relationships
with classmates and peers) and through high school.
My first grader is insistent that she should join a higher grade,
but she’s so young. Shouldn’t she stay with kids her own age?
Some kids have an uncanny way of figuring out what to do
when their needs in school aren’t being met. Take seven-year-old
Emily from Michigan who realized after beginning kindergarten
that even though she was in the second grade reading group, she
needed to advance out of kindergarten completely and into the
second grade. “Kindergarten was too easy,” she said. “I had already
learned my alphabet, and I could read, so I didn’t need to learn it
again.” Emily refused to go to kindergarten after the sixth week,
according to her mother. Emily discussed the issue with her parents, and then together they approached her teachers. Ultimately,
Emily moved ahead to the second grade, where she thrived. Having already participated in the second grade reading group, Emily
was now among her peers.
As this testimonial illustrates, a flexible parent who really listens
is better equipped to support, encourage, and advocate for appropriate education options for a child.
My 5-year-old is reading at a third grade level, but he is,
after all, still a 5-year-old. Why should I treat him differently from any other child?
Another common question people ask is if gifted kids really are
that different from other kids. Children who are exceptionally bright
are still kids, but they are different. They often feel more intensely,
they challenge more emphatically, they know so much more! Think
about what it means to read at age 4, for example. Not only does the
child have a skill that most other kids the same age don’t have, but
being able to read changes a kid’s life forever. The world broadens
beyond family, school, and community. Reading isn’t just a skill,
like tying your shoes; it’s a profound awakening.
What does it mean to have an advanced vocabulary? Gifted
children will soon discover that they can’t always communicate
with kids their age. Being just plain smarter than most other kids
they know—or more curious, energetic, focused, complex, or creative— can set them apart. The sooner you accept and welcome
the fact that your child isn’t like other kids, the happier you’ll both
be, and the more you’ll be able to help your child. Remember—
these differences don’t mean “better than,” they mean “different
from.” Acknowledging a child’s giftedness does not mean the child
is better than other kids. Developing respect for others and learning good social skills is as vital to a gifted child’s upbringing as it
is for any other child.
Henry was speaking in complete sentences at a year and a half.
By age 2, when playing with children his age, he’d ask his parents, “Why don’t they talk to me?” His long, involved, made-up
stories already included words like “difficult,” “arrange,” “ignoring,” and “serious.” His friends didn’t talk to him because they
didn’t have the words to converse at his level—a fact his parents
found hard to explain.
What does exceptionally bright or gifted mean, exactly? I
know my child is advanced, but what specifically should I be
looking for?
Giftedness used to mean (and still does in some circles) that
someone tested in the top five percent of the population on general intelligence tests. Today we know it means so much more. In
a 1993 report, the U.S. Department of Education defined giftedness in this way:
Children and youth with outstanding talent perform or show
the potential for performing at remarkably high levels of accomplishment when compared with others of their age, experience, or environment… These children or youth exhibit high
performance capability in intellectual, creative, and/or artistic
areas, possess an unusual leadership capacity, or excel in specific
academic fields. They require services or activities not ordinarily
provided by the schools.
PARENTS SHOULD LOOK FOR...
Schools, governmental agencies, researchers, advocacy groups,
educators, and even the dictionary hold differing definitions of giftedness and how to best address it. Parents may be the best judges of
their children’s needs, but to the person unfamiliar with giftedness,
recognizing exceptional intelligence can be difficult. Some widely
accepted characteristics of giftedness include the following:
Advanced Intellectual Ability: This is the trait most people
think of when they hear the word “gifted.” A child with advanced
intellectual ability may seem just plain smart in a lot of areas, including some that might surprise you. He may come up with new
ideas and concepts on his own and apply them in creative and
interesting ways.
At the beginning of first grade, Raoul drew a life-sized portrait
and presented it to his teacher. She was puzzled, so he explained
that it was a self-portrait “without his skin on.” She said it
looked messy, so he went back to his work table to simplify it.
When he brought it to her again, he had color-coded the nervous, skeletal, and muscular systems in red, blue, and black.
Verbal Proficiency: This is one of the most obvious signs that
a child is gifted. Suddenly she’s speaking in complete sentences
or using words you didn’t know she knew. Like two-year-old Olivia whose friends were baffled by her advanced words, a verbally
proficient child may talk early, skipping the period of grammatical errors that most toddlers go through, and pronouncing words
correctly from the start.
Curiosity: If a child is very smart, chances are he’ll also be very
curious. And if he has strong verbal skills, he’ll use them to satisfy his curiosity. Gifted kids want to know something about everything (and everything about some things), and they’re not shy
about asking.
When Matt was 7, his parents bought him a science encyclopedia. It
was 700 pages long and written at a middle-school level. Matt insisted
that the encyclopedia be his “bedtime story” until his father had read
the whole thing from cover to cover.
“Positively embracing
and encouraging the giftedness
within your child may be the best
gift you will ever give to her.
Making your son or daughter
aware that you value and support
his or her abilities, while
embracing them as a child.”
Creativity: Creativity is another obvious sign of giftedness.
Many artists, musicians, dancers, writers, and other creative types
make their gifts public. Showing, performing, and seeing their
work in print is part of the fun.
High Energy: A child with high energy may stay active until
he drops—all day and into the night—moving around a lot and
refusing to be idle. He may need constant stimulation when not
focused and concentrating on something that holds his interest.
Focus, Passion, Intensity: Gifted children are famously focused. They have incredibly long attention spans for topics that
interest them. A child with focus, passion, and intensity may get
immersed, even obsessed, and lost in her own world.
Logical Thinking: The logical thinker may come up with powerful, persuasive arguments for almost anything, and he may complain loudly when things aren’t fair.
Jake, 3 years old, had always called his dad by his first name, Joe.
His mother didn’t like this, so she asked her husband to talk with
Jake about it. Their conversation went like this:
Joe: “Jake, Mom would really like it if you would call me Dad.”
Jake: “Because you’re my dad, and I’m your son?”
Joe: “Yes.”
Jake: “Then are you going to call me Son?”
Joe: “Would you like me to call you Son?”
Jake: “No, I would like you to call me Jake. And I will call
you Joe.”
Sensitivity: Many people can accept that gifted kids have adultlike intelligence at times, but kids with adult-like emotions are
harder to accept. A sensitive child may have empathy at an early
age, as well as a social conscience.
Sense of Humor: Perhaps because they’re bright and curious,
energetic and emotional, creative and passionate, many gifted kids
also have a well-developed sense of humor. A child who does may
love to laugh, and he may make up riddles and jokes with double
meanings. Exceptionally bright children may display one or several of the above characteristics. Follow your instincts if you believe your child should be evaluated—and start researching ways
to nurture him or her and yourself.
PARENT ACTION What can I do to nurture my child, now that I’m aware of
his giftedness?
A good first step is to talk with your child’s teachers or caregivers. Many children, including gifted children, behave very
differently at school than at home, so you may see things in
your child that teachers do not (and vise-versa). At home, there
are many things a parent can do to encourage a young learner:
• Spend time together with your child exploring and playing.
• Remember that your little one is a kid! Laugh, play, and
include healthy childhood activities. Being exceptionally
bright shouldn’t mean studying 12 hours a day.
• Learn with your child—keep lots of books and other reading materials around the house.
• Help your child to learn persistence and risk taking by trying new things yourself.
• Limit exposure to TV and computer games. Encourage activities that engage your child’s mind and body.
• Provide ample opportunities for enrichment—going deeper
into subjects that interest your child, or working on higherlevel skills.
• The child who seems hungry to learn at home may be bored
(and as a result, distracted) at school. Communicate early and
often with your child’s teachers and caregivers about ways to
ensure an appropriate education for your child.
• Explore the gifted programs available in your school district so
you know what options exist.
• Attend conferences, and bring your child along if possible.
You’re talking about her, why shouldn’t she be part of the dialog?
• Don’t allow yourself to become isolated. Research support organizations for parents of gifted kids so you keep learning.
• Reach out to other parents. You’ll find camaraderie and possibly a
new friend that your child may connect with on a deeper level.
Positively embracing and encouraging the giftedness within
your child may be the best gift you will ever give to her. Making
your son or daughter aware that you value and support his or her
abilities, while still embracing them as a child, is an important step
toward celebrating life on the bright side. n
REFERENCES:
Delisle, J., & Galbraith, J. (2002). When gifted kids don’t have all the answers. Minneapolis: Free Spirit Publishing.
Galbraith, J. (2000). You know your child is gifted when… a beginner’s guide to life on
the bright side. Minneapolis: Free Spirit Publishing.
Schultz, R.A. & Delisle, J. (2006). Smart talk: What kids say about growing up gifted.
Minneapolis: Free Spirit Publishing.
Smutny, J.F. (2001). Stand up for your gifted child: How to make the most of kids’
strengths at school and at home. Minneapolis: Free Spirit Publishing.
U.S Department of Education. (1993). National excellence: A case for developing america’s talent. Washington, D.C.
Walker, S.Y. (2002). The survival guide for parents of gifted kids. Minneapolis: Free
Spirit Publishing.
JUDY GALBRAITH, M.A., is author (with Jim Delisle) of The
Gifted Teen Survival Guide. She also is author of The Gifted
Kids’ Survival Guide (For Ages 10 & Under), You Know Your
Child Is Gifted When…. Judy is founder and president of
Free Spirit Publishing, the Minneapolis based home of
award winning learning resources. A former classroom
teacher specializing in gifted education, Galbraith recognized a clear need for positive, practical books to help
children and teens navigate life’s challenges. She began
Free Spirit Publishing in 1983, which has become the leading publisher of learning tools that support young people’s
social-emotional and educational needs.
*Editor’s note: This article is reprinted from the Spring 2007 issue
of Gifted Education Communicator that also dealt with the issue of
identification of gifted learners.
Recommended Standards for Gifted and Talented Education
California Department of Education
3 Section 2: Identification The district’s identification procedures are equitable, comprehensive, and ongoing. They reflect the district’s
definition of giftedness and its relationship to current state criteria. (EC 52202: Title 5 Regulations, Section 3822)
2:1 The nomination/referral process is ongoing and includes students K-12.
Minimum Standards: One year approval
a. All children are eligible for the nomination
process regardless of socioeconomic, linguistic
or cultural background, and/or disabilities.
b. The district establishes and implements both
traditional and nontraditional instruments
and procedures for searching for gifted students. All data is used to ensure equal access
to program services.
c. Referrals are sought from classroom teachers
and parents. District actively searches for referrals among underrepresented populations.
d. Students may be nominated for participation
more than once.
e. All staff receive training and information
about the nomination process, including
the characteristics of gifted learners and
have access to nomination forms.
Commendable Standards: Two year approval
a. Training in the identification process is provided that is specifically appropriate for administrators, teachers and support personnel.
b. The district maintains data on nominees and
includes these data in reassessing students who
are referred more than once.
Exemplary Standards: Three year approval.
2:2 An assessment/identification process is in place to ensure that all potentially gifted students are appropriately
assessed for identification as gifted students.
a. A committee, including the GATE coordinator and certificated personnel, make final
determinations on individual student eligibility for the program.
b. Evidence from multiple sources is used to
determine eligibility and a data record or file
is established for each nominee.
c. Parents and teachers are notified of a student’s eligibility for program placement and
are informed of the appeal process.
d. Transfer students are considered for identification and placement in a timely manner.
a. The identification tools used are reflective of
the district’s population.
b. The district makes timely changes in identification tools and procedures based on the most
current research.
Exemplary Standards: Three year approval
a. Personnel trained in gifted education
meet at regular intervals to determine
eligibility of individual candidates.
b. The diversity of the district’s student
population is increasingly reflected in
the district GATE population.
2:3 Multiple service options are available within the gifted education program and between other educational
programs. Placement is based on the assessed needs of the student and is periodically reviewed.
a. Students and parents are provided information and orientation regarding student placement and participation options. Signed parent permission for participation is on file.
b. Upon parent request the district provides
identification information the parent may
take to a new school or district.
c. Participation in the program is based on the
criteria of identification and is not dependent
on the perception of a single individual. Once
identified, a student remains identified as a
gifted student in the district, though services
to individuals may vary from year to year.
a. Before any student is considered for withdrawal from the program, interventions are implemented and a meeting is held with the parents
and student.
Exemplary Standards: Three year approval
California State School Board
approved 10/01; revised 07/05
Issues of
Identification and
Underrepresentation
photo by dan nelson
I
t is true that giftedness at the highest level can be found in
every cultural group. It is also true that the incidence of participation in gifted programs by some of the racial, ethnic,
and socio-economic groups in society varies from group to
group; it is far lower among some of the culturally and linguistically diverse (C&LD) groups such as the Hispanic-American,
African-American, and the American Indian than participation by
Anglo-American and Asian-American groups. A number of factors have often been cited as contributors to this underrepresentation. Primary among them are the:
• method of identification for gifted programs
• definition of intelligence and giftedness
• bias and prejudice of educators
An extraordinary amount of writing, research, and concern has
been focused on these factors. But are these the issues that are
most responsible for the very real problem of underrepresentation
obvious in gifted programs in schools today? Do these issues provide the best framework to use in planning research and seeking
solutions? How do culture and linguistic differences impact intelligence and the incidence of giftedness? Is the issue of underrepresentation even about racial and ethnic diversity?
THE DISCRIMINATION THEORY There are currently at least two theories that are in use to explain the unequal representation of racially and ethnically diverse
groups in gifted education. The discrimination theory is supported by those who believe that underrepresentation is created by
inappropriate identification procedures, limited definitions of in-
By Barbara Clark
telligence and giftedness, and prejudice on the part of members of
the educational community. This group believes that there would
be equal representation of all diverse groups in gifted programs in
direct proportion to the demographics of the district if the educational community took the following action.
Change biased identification practices. The advocates for this
view believe that traditional tests are unfair to anyone outside of
the mainstream culture, because they are too limiting in the type
of information sought and often normed on quite different populations than those that are underrepresented. These advocates believe that the standards set by the schools of what must be known
do not include the type of information, abilities, and skills developed by these populations, making it impossible for them to
test well. Non-verbal tests are suggested as better at finding these
abilities and skills. From this belief, a new cadre of such tests has
been developed to fill this gap. In addition there is concern among
advocates of the discrimination theory that in the identification
process too much emphasis is placed on checklists used by teachers
that list only behaviors atypical of students in underrepresented
groups. They are concerned by the use of low-test scores and additional criteria such as school attendance and class behavior to
eliminate students.
Change the definitions of intelligence and of giftedness,
the term used to label a high level of intelligence. The current
definitions are seen as too narrow and skewed toward AngloAmerican and Asian-American groups. In addition to the intellectual thinking skills it is believed that emotional, social,
kinesthetic, and interpersonal skills should be included in the
definitions and characteristics used to define giftedness. The
manifestation of creativity should be considered important
even in the absence of more rational skills and abilities. Standards for what needs to be learned and what represents intelligence need to be changed to better fit the values, attitudes, and
opportunities of the underrepresented students.
Prevent bias and prejudice among members of the educational community from blocking the entry of the underrepresented students into the gifted programs. While teachers are often the gatekeepers determining who will be selected for gifted
programs, many teachers lack knowledge in regard to the characteristics, values, and differing abilities of students from underrepresented groups. Research has shown that teachers often have
low expectations for diverse students. Advocates of this point of
view refer to such expectations as deficit thinking. They find that
such thinking causes diverse students to doubt their ability and to
sabotage their own achievement.
In summary, advocates of the discrimination theory believe that
giftedness is evenly distributed across all demographic groups, but
the traditional methods of identifying students for gifted programs
are culturally biased preventing equity in the identification process
and limiting access to gifted programs. In this view, adoption of a
quota system to ensure that all cultural groups—usually defined
by these advocates by race—are equally represented in the same
proportion in the classroom that they are found in the community
is justified. If we were to look with more openness and willingness
to change the standards of what information must be known and
what skills must be learned, discrimination theorists believe we
would find equal numbers of gifted learners in every racial and
ethnic group. All other points of view are regarded as deficit thinking and dismissed as racially biased. Much of the current writing,
thinking, discussion, and activity in the field of gifted education
is based on the discrimination theory as the only possible explanation for underrepresentation.
THE DISTRIBUTION THEORY Although much of what has been discussed about underrepresentation from the discrimination theory point of view certainly
needs our attention, there is a second theory that suggests that
giftedness actually is unequally distributed across demographic
groups. Advocates of the distribution theory of underrepresentation are concerned about how this unequal development is caused
and how it can be prevented. A significant body of information
has shown that there are real differences in the level of important
intellectual skills and achievement ability among racial and ethnic
groups and that these IQ/achievement gaps and what caused them
are real and important. These advocates point out that cultural
groups differ on availability of support systems, provision of resources, priority given to certain kinds of talent, individual initiative, and leadership, among other factors. What is valued by the
culture is produced by the culture.
From decades of research from the neurosciences it is known
that the development of intelligence is an interactive process.
The growth of intelligence depends on the interaction between
the inherited neurological patterns of the individual and the en28 Gifted Education Communicator Summer 2012
vironment in which the individual is developing. A high level of
growth of intelligence requires a variety of intellectually challenging experiences in a responsive, stimulating environment from the
earliest years of the child’s life. Therefore, the following conditions
must be considered as important reasons for underrepresentation
among cultural groups:
• Low socioeconomic status (SES) homes tend to have restricted
environments both in terms of learning materials and opportunities available and in practices of child-rearing.
• Larger percentages of African-Americans, Hispanic-Americans,
and American Indians grow up in low SES circumstances than
do Anglo-Americans and Asian-Americans.
• Low SES students are generally much less likely
Advocates of the distribution theory believe that the larger issues
in underrepresentation are not about race or discrimination; they
are about economics. It has been found to be easier to identify
gifted students from middle-class homes, regardless of their racial
or cultural group than to identify giftedness in homes in poverty.
Underrepresentation of gifted children from poverty crosses all racial and ethnic groups.
Poverty is not just about money. Rather it is important to understand that poverty involves the extent to which an individual does
without resources. Not only financial resources but emotional, intellectual, and physical resources; relationships and role models;
and innumerable external support systems. The major difference
between children from poverty and other children, say researchers
in this area, is in the type and quantity of opportunities inherent
in the child’s environment.
Regarding the use of quota systems in the identification process,
it is significant that limited experience in the early environment
provides limited skills. A child raised in these environments needs
opportunities for development of such skills, not for the more advanced or complex work found in gifted programs. If there is no
match between the experiences needed by the child and the goals
and curriculum of the gifted program, placing the child in the program will only lead to frustration and further damage intellectually
and academically. In regard to testing, it should be noted, that those
in the field of psychometrics continue to publish data showing that
the gifted students in underrepresented groups actually do better on
standardized testing than on non-verbal testing and confirm that
two quite different groups are formed from the results of these two
testing formats. Terms like underrepresentation and quota requirements are less applicable when the limitations of opportunity the
student has previously experienced are considered.
Here is the dilemma of excellence versus equity. Why shouldn’t
we strive for both? It will take a long-term effort requiring systemic
change in the belief systems and cultural practices that shape early
learning and childrearing necessary to optimize brain development.
Disparity cannot be satisfactorily alleviated through changes in either the definition of giftedness or the identification process.
ACTIONS TO ALLEVIATE UNDERREPRESENTATION From both theories comes knowledge of the following conditions that can appropriately be said to create underrepresentation
and that we must work to alleviate:
• Biased beliefs about the diverse populations. The appropriate
action would be to work to change these beliefs.
• Lack of opportunity for early learning. Act to make sure the
parents from all cultures are given information on the essential
experiences a child needs to develop intellectually and knowledge of activities that provide such experiences.
• Lack of opportunity to learn school skills and testing skills. The
appropriate action would be to provide opportunities for learning basic skills that may be missing. Use of dynamic assessment
or the “test-learn-test” framework would be of benefit.
• Fear the students have of rejection by their culture and peer
group if they participate in school related learning and/or intellectual skill building, especially if they are successful. There
is evidence that many outstanding African-American students
are performing less well than they are able to avoid the threat
of being viewed by members of their culture as a negative stereotype. This is one of the most difficult problems to remedy.
Having the student examine the consequences, both short
term and long term, of participation and nonparticipation,
may be of help in removing this self-defeating block.
It is clear that opportunities for growth must be provided for
culturally diverse students, but in so doing, we must guard against
changing cultural and family patterns just because they are different. Diversity is the cornerstone of developing potential and
only patterns that inhibit the development of that potential need
modification. Potential for giftedness may be found regardless of
the cultural background in the manner in which abilities are expressed, such as:
• a strong desire to learn
• intense, sometimes unusual interests
• unusual ability to communicate with words, numbers, or symbols.
• effective, often inventive strategies for recognizing and solving
problems
• exceptional ability to retain and retrieve information, resulting
in a large storehouse of information
• extensive and unusual questions, experiments, and explorations • a quick grasp of new concepts, connections; a sense of
deeper meanings
• logical approaches to figuring out solutions
• an ability to produce many highly original ideas
• a keen, often unusual sense of humor
Needed is the development of enriched learning opportunities
through which youngsters can actually demonstrate their potential by their performance and products, making self-identification an integral part of the assessment process.
Those who work in gifted programs should continue to search
out the extraordinarily talented in all social groups by using the
soundest techniques at their disposal. The problems of identifying and nurturing talent potential are not resolved by formulating constructs of giftedness solely for minority and economically
disadvantaged students that differ from those for the majority
populations, by lowering the criteria or standards for excellence
or outstanding performance, or by seeking different areas of
talent in various populations. The challenge is one of creating
opportunities that take culture and context into account to enhance the possibilities for identifying potential of many kinds in
all populations. Appropriate opportunities and conditions must
be provided to nurture potential into giftedness. Underrepresentation is a far more complex problem than a change of testing
can solve. We should not trade excellence for equity. We must
aim for increasing both.
Gifted education programs should continue to do what they
do best and what no other education program attempts to do:
provide a variety of educational opportunities for exceptionally
able children so that they may realize their potential. Finding
ways to change the IQ/achievement gap between cultures at the
level of causation instead of the level of its symptoms should be
an important part of the mission for programs in gifted education and talent development. If we could help all families in all
cultural groups in culturally sensitive ways to understand what
experiences are essential to develop the child’s intelligence at the
beginning of their lives, the current waste of human potential
would change and discussion of theories of underrepresentation
would be unnecessary. n
REFERENCES:
Ford, D. Y. (2003). Equity and excellence: Culturally diverse students in gifted education.
In N. Colangelo, & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed., pp. 506520). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Ford, D. Y. (2006). Creating culturally responsive classrooms for gifted students. Understanding Our Gifted. 19(1), 10-14.
Frasier, M., Garcia, J. H., & Passow, A. H. (1995). A review of assessment issues in gifted
education and their implications for identifying gifted minority students. Research
Monograph 95204. Storrs, CT: National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
Gottfredson, L. S. (2004). Realities in desegregating gifted education. In D. Boothe, &
J.C. Stanley (Eds.), In the eyes of the beholder: Critical issues for diversity in gifted
education (pp. 139-155). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
Miller, L. S. (2004). Promoting sustained growth in the representation of African Americans, Latinos, and Native Americans among top students in the United States at
all levels of the educational system. Storrs, CT: The National Research Center on
the Gifted and Talented. Slocumb, P. D. (2001). Giftedness in poverty, Gifted Education Communicator, 32(4), 6-11. Slocumb, P. D., & Payne, R. K. (2000). Removing the
mask: Giftedness in poverty. Highlands, TX: RFT.
BARBARA CLARK, Ed.D., is a Professor Emeritus in the
Charter College of Education at California State University, Los Angeles. She is the author of the widely used
text, Growing Up Gifted, soon to appear in its eighth
edition (2013). Dr. Clark is a past president of the World
Council for Gifted and Talented Children, the National Association for Gifted Children, and the California Association for the Gifted as well as the Advising Editor of Gifted
Education Communicator. She is a recognized scholar
and has presented major addresses and workshops
throughout the United States and the world.
*Editor’s note: This article is a reprint from the Spring, 2007 issue
of Gifted Education Communicator, pp22–25.
By Beth Littrell
Fractions on a Number Line
A Lesson for The Common Core State Standards
Identifying Appropriate Learning Tasks for Gifted Students
I
recently spoke with a coordinator from another district who
was concerned about the identification process, and choices
between equity and excellence. While she was asking how
we identify gifted students in our district, I was answering
with how we identified service. When it became clear that we were
discussing two different topics, I clarified that my charge was not
to “label,” but to identify the most appropriate placement for students based on a range of data. I wish I could go back to the
beginning of that conversation and the implication that we have
to choose between equity and excellence. In fact, I think that
the only way we can ever achieve either is by providing both.
This week, I was speaking to a friend who is taking an art
class. In each class, they learn a new medium or technique, and
then present their artwork for critique at the next meeting. On
the day I was talking with her, a guest teacher had come, and
had judged last week’s work by this week’s rubric. My friend
was understandably disheartened.
Over the past several issues of this journal, I have written
about Response to Instruction and Intervention (RtI2), par30 Gifted Education Communicator Summer 2012
ticularly those Tier One strategies for initial instruction. With
Common Core State Standards on the horizon, it is important
to begin looking at those standards as a way to establish learning goals for students that are both equitable and excellent. By
this, I mean that lessons must provide the rich complexity of
learning tasks required for engagement of our gifted learners
with appropriate scaffolds to give all students an entry point.
And we have to be explicit about what we are asking. In the
lesson presented here, the standards call for sophistication in
process, and flexibility in processes. Math standards are beginning to call for mathematical understanding that transcends
arithmetical steps. You can’t get an “A” by simply giving an accurate number for each question mark, and this paradigm shift
has to be explicitly explained to parents and students so that we
don’t have the same mis-match of expectation and evaluation
that frustrated my friend.
In my perfect world, the critique would be a conversation between the student and the teacher. Two questions would guide
the conversation: 1) What did you learn, and how did you
0
?
1
0
?
1
?
0
1
0
3 1/3
?
?
1
?
4
?
5
6
?
3
?
5
5
0
?
0
1/7
48
60
?
?
?
0
learn it? and 2) What are your next steps based on this learning? In my current situation, my “students” are teachers who
are working toward a professional clear credential. Of course,
like my friend’s art teacher, I offer some insights and coaching
tips based on what I see, but I first make sure that they have
taken the professional responsibility of self-reflection, and that
I am responding with the right rubric. It is a sad day, indeed,
when a student has discovered a fabulous new understanding,
and I count it “wrong” because I didn’t understand their insight, and didn’t take the time to process their answer.
I look forward to the implementation of the Common Core
State Standards. I believe that they will foster problem-finding
and problem solving, curiosity, abstract thinking, lateral and
relational thinking skills that are highly motivational and engaging for gifted students, and that develop the intellect in
all students. In this article, I will be exploring the Standards
for Mathematical Practice from the Common Core State Standards, and offering a task for home or school that is designed
to help students develop as mathematicians. In this article, I
?
5
?
Figure. 1
will be using a lesson inspired by April Cherrington, the Math
Coordinator in the San Mateo County Office of Education.
The Task: Assuming that each number line has marks that
are equally spaced (except the third one in this picture, which
has one of the segments divided in half ), decide what number (fraction) is represented by each question mark (?), and
then use precise, academic mathematical language to convince
a peer, parent, or teacher that your answer is right. To do this,
you will need to practice the Standards for Mathematical Practice that are the preface to the Common Core State Standards
for Mathematics.
Each of the standards for mathematical practice are included, in bold face, with a brief description of my vision for using
that particular standard in this context.
Don’t look through the journal for answers to these questions. I haven’t included my answers because it’s not a number that is most important, but rather, a creative process that
proves to yourself, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that your solution is correct. Instead of offering my solution, I’ve offered
some questions prompted by the National Council for Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) and the National Research Council’s report, Adding it Up. All of these prompts are discussed in
the introduction to the Common Core State Standards which
can be found on the website for the California Department of
Education (CDE) at www.cde.ca.gov
Make sense of problems and persevere in solving them
The first step in this task is to figure out what we have to find.
As I presented this problem to fourth and fifth graders, I had to
begin by examining assumptions:
• Do number lines “start” at zero?
• Are there numbers on the number line that are not represented in the part of the line that is pictured in any problem or scenario?
After students examine their assumptions about a problem,
the next task is to find an entry point. For me, the second
number line is a much easier entry point than the first one,
but the two are related, and the first line could have a second
answer, which is prompted by the second line. Nobody said we
had to start at the top and move to the bottom, but as teachers
(in the classroom or at home), we should create progressive matrices in which we can use learning from early tasks to provide
entry points as we persevere in more complex problems.
On this point, Carol Dweck’s MindSet makes an important
point. All students, and particularly gifted students, must adopt
a growth mindset of perseverance in the face of adversity. When
we think that we know an answer because we are “smart,” then
as the problems get more challenging, and we no longer know
the answer without an intellectual struggle, we tend to throw
our hands up in despair and say, “I guess I’m smart, but not
smart enough to do this problem.” When, on the other hand,
we believe that we found an answer because we worked hard,
then challenging problems become a delightful opportunity to
work harder.
Reason abstractly and quantitatively
In the old paradigm, we cut up cakes and pizzas to represent
fractions. As we consider fractions on a number line, we begin
to reason about the relationship of a fraction and the whole
numbers that surround it. By discussing each fraction in its
quantitative relationships to other numbers on the number
line, we “decontextualize,” or abstract the situation with symbolic representation.
Construct viable arguments
and critique the reasoning of others.
The more interesting mathematical discussion comes from
the discussion in which students prove, with evidence, the reliability of their solution, and listen to alternative pathways.
This is an excellent time to practice the language of a mathematician, noting patterns, trends, systems or rules, and to look at
each problem from a variety of contexts. As adults, we should
model precise academic language from many disciplines, and
expect the same from our children.
Coaching in this strategy might start with cloze sentences that
require minimal answers, and build to frames that are much
more open-ended. For example, in the first number line,
• I noticed that there were ___ intervals between zero (0) and
one (1), and the question mark (?) was located at the ___
interval. Therefore, I believe that ___ can be substituted for
the question mark.
Beginning in the fifth example, a frame is much more
appropriate than a cloze sentence. You might consider something like,
• The strategy I used to determine the value of each interval was
_________________________.
• Extending this strategy, I believe that ___ can be substituted for
the question mark because _________________________.
In a math class, it is important to coach intellectual peers to
challenge the assumptions and require evidence in the form of
a model, diagram, or action that provides evidence of a viable
argument. By listening to a variety of reasonable pathways, students will learn to think in new modalities. If I solve these problems from the perspective of a chess player, I’m going to have
different reasoning than if I solve them from the standpoint of
an artist or a linguist or an accountant or a psychologist….
Model with mathematics
The first thing that comes to my mind is “write a scenario
(problem) that could be solved with this graphic.” One of my
students (a math teacher) got out colored pencils and modeled
by coloring each whole number interval in a different color.
An engineering student talked about the algorithms that would
prove the answers, and my mom saw these problems as pieces
of cloth from which she could make a quilt.
Use appropriate tools strategically
Tools can include pencils, paper, scissors, rulers, protractors,
calculators, spreadsheets, statistical analysis packages, mom,
dad, brother, sister, teacher, or friend. My favorite mathematical tool is my cell phone. I have stubbornly held on to my
7-year old flip phone because I am addicted to the internet and
e-mail, and know that if it was always in my pocket, I could
easily disconnect from the three-dimensional world.
But my cell phone has one important feature that makes it
my best math asset. “*4” calls my mom, I am able to reason
through complex problems. That human connection with a
person who makes time every day to let me unleash my thinking in its wild, abstract frenzy, is my life-line to coherent, logical expression.
Try using a different tool to model or explain each line of the
problem presented here, or in your math homework tonight.
Attend to precision
In the beginning of this article, I said that it wasn’t a number
that mattered to me on this. But that’s only because my assumption is that if you engage in this task, you will engage on a level
that transcends precision. Please do not mistake that statement
for a lackadaisical disregard for precision. 99% isn’t close enough
in many situations. If 99% of our flights had safe landings, few
of us would fly. Accuracy and precision is a habit of mind that
must be developed and nurtured, but in the new standards, that’s
the starting point, not the end. Correct calculation to predictable
algorithmic problems might make an adequate arithmetician;
mathematicians go way beyond.
Look for and make use of structure
Look for and express regularity in repeated reasoning
These last two standards seem inexorably linked. When April
Cherrington came to our district to discuss these new standards,
we broke into teams and opened envelopes in which much simpler
problems were presented. The most complex of the problems was
similar to the number line in the fifth line of the examples that I
generated for this article. But, as one who rarely follows a sequential set of instructions, I began with the first one I pulled from the
envelope instead of ordering them from a to g. My team helped
me focus on an appropriate structure, and we quickly saw patterns
in the first problems that helped us solve the more complex ones
in the three minutes we were allotted.
Creating simpler problems that express the same mathematical
ideas can be the scaffold needed for students who are not ready to
move as quickly to the complex as I have done in this example. This
is where the art of teaching applies. What are the structures that
would help students make the leap from the fourth line to the fifth?
How might students create problems that “fill in the gaps,” or “leaps
to understanding” that might be larger than they can navigate?
Bloom called it “Application” or “Analysis.” Finding the critical
attributes, discussing the patterns, and performing an audit on
thinking cause us to be able to navigate a mathematical scenario
with fluidity, precision, and elegance.
In this lesson, I have not talked about the grade-specific benchmarks for student understanding, but rather the universal understandings that are the underpinnings of the Common Core. It is
my hope that you will look at the CDE website to investigate your
own grade-appropriate standards, and then think about an inquiry
that engages all of these scholarly habits. n
Resources
Common Core State Standards: California. www.cde.ca.gov/ci/cc
Dweck, Carol S. (2007). Mindset: The New Psychology of Success. New York: Ballantine
Books, a division of Random House, Inc.
Kilpatrick, J., Swafford, J., Findell, B. (2001). Adding it Up: Helping Children Learn Mathematics. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). www.nctm.org
BETH LITTRELL, M.Ed. is the Resource Specialist for GATE,
BTSA Advisor, and RtI2 Middle School Facilitator in the
San Mateo-Foster City School District in California. She
has worked with gifted students and their teachers for
26 years. She serves as Associate Editor for Curriculum &
Instruction for the Gifted Education Communicator.
NAGC Teacher Preparation and Program/Service Standards
Gifted Education Programming Standard 2: Assessment Introduction
Knowledge about all forms of assessment is essential for educators of students with gifts and talents. It is integral to identification, assessing each
student’s learning progress, and evaluation of programming. Educators need to establish a challenging environment and collect multiple types of
assessment information so that all students are able to demonstrate their gifts and talents. Educators’ understanding of non-biased, technically adequate, and equitable approaches enables them to identify students who represent diverse backgrounds. They also differentiate their curriculum and
instruction by using pre- and post-, performance-based, product-based, and out-of-level assessments. As a result of each educator’s use of ongoing
assessments, students with gifts and talents demonstrate advanced and complex learning. Using these student progress data, educators then evaluate
services and make adjustments to one or more of the school’s programming components so that student performance is improved.
Standard 2: Assessment
Description: Assessments provide information about identification, learning progress and outcomes, and evaluation of programmingfor students
with gifts and talents in all domains.
Student Outcomes
2.1. Identification. All students in
grades PK-12 have equal access to a
comprehensive assessment system that
allows them to demonstrate diverse
characteristics and behaviors that are
associated with giftedness.
Evidence-Based Practices
2.1.1. Educators develop environments and instructional activities that encourage students to express
diverse characteristics and behaviors that are associated with giftedness.
2.1.2. Educators provide parents/guardians with information regarding diverse characteristics and behaviors
that are associated with giftedness.
2.2. Identification. Each studentreveals his or her exceptionalities or
potential through assessment evidence so that appropriate instructional
accommodations and modifications
can be provided.
2.2.1. Educators establish comprehensive, cohesive, and ongoing procedures for identifying and serving
students with gifts and talents. These provisions include informed consent, committee review, student retention, student reassessment, student exiting, and appeals procedures for both entry and exit from gifted
program services.
2.2.2. Educators select and use multiple assessments that measure diverse abilities, talents, and strengths that
are based on current theories, models, and research.
2.2.3 Assessments provide qualitative and quantitative information from a variety of sources, including
off-level testing, are nonbiased and equitable, and are technically adequate for the purpose.
2.2.4. Educators have knowledge of student exceptionalities and collect assessment data while adjusting
curriculum and instruction to learn about each student’s developmental level and aptitude for learning.
2.2.6. Educators inform all parents/guardians about the identification process. Teachers obtain parental/
guardian permission for assessments, use culturally sensitive checklists, and elicit evidence regarding the child’s
interests and potential outside of the classroom setting.
2.3. Identification. Students with identified needs represent diverse backgrounds
and reflect the total student population
of the district.
2.3.1. Educators select and use non-biased and equitable approaches for identifying students with gifts and
talents, which may include using locally developed norms or assessment tools in the child’s native language
or in nonverbal formats.
2.3.2. Educators understand and implement district and state policies designed to foster equity in gifted
programming and services.
2.4.1. Educators use differentiated pre- and post- performance-based assessments to measure the progress
of students with gifts and talents.
2.4. Learning Progress and Outcomes.
Students with gifts and talents demonstrate
advanced and complex learning as a result
of using multiple, appropriate, and ongoing assessments.
2.4.1. Educators use differentiated pre- and post- performance-based assessments to measure the progress of
students with gifts and talents.
2.4.2. Educators use differentiated product-based assessments to measure the progress of students with gifts
and talents.
2.4.3. Educators use off-level standardized assessments to measure the progress of students with gifts
and talents.
2.4.4. Educators use and interpret qualitative and quantitative assessment information to develop a profile
of the strengths and weaknesses of each student with gifts and talents to plan appropriate intervention.
2.4.5. Educators communicate and interpret assessment information to students with gifts and talents and their
parents/guardians.
2.5. Evaluation of Programming. Students identified with gifts and talents
demonstrate important learning progress
as a result of programming and services.
2.5.1. Educators ensure that the assessments used in the identification and evaluation processes are
reliable and valid for each instrument’s purpose, allow for above-grade-level performance, and allow for
diverse perspectives.
2.5.2. Educators ensure that the assessment of the progress of students with gifts and talents uses multiple
indicators that measure mastery of content, higher level thinking skills, achievement in specific program
areas, and affective growth.
2.5.3. Educators assess the quantity, quality, and appropriateness of the programming and services provided
for students with gifts and talents by disaggregating assessment data and yearly progress data and making the
results public.
2.6. Evaluation of Programming.
Students identified with gifts and
talents have increased
access and they show significant
learning progress as a result of improving components of gifted education programming.
2.6.1. Administrators provide the necessary time and resources to implement an annual evaluation plan developed by persons with expertise in program evaluation and gifted education.
2.6.2. The evaluation plan is purposeful and evaluates how student-level outcomes are influenced by one or more of the following components of gifted education programming:
(a) identification, (b) curriculum, (c) instructional programming and services, (d) ongoing
assessment of student learning, (e) counseling and guidance programs, (f ) teacher qualifications and professional development, (g) parent/guardian and community involvement, (h)
programming resources, and (i) programming design, management, and delivery.
2.6.3. Educators disseminate the results of the evaluation, orally and in written form, and
explain how they will use the results.
W E B W ATCH
By Carolyn Kottmeyer
Identifying Gifted Learners
I
dentifying gifted kids is one of the easiest and hardest tasks
in gifted education. Why? Because some gifted kids “jump
off the page” at you, making it infinitely clear that they’re
extra-ready for learning, while others hide from identification for more reasons than a millipede has legs. Beyond the obvious complications of gifted students who do not speak English as
their first language, and those who are growing up in cultures that
do not emphasize the value of gifted identification or advanced
education, there are other complications caused by learning disabilities or relative weaknesses in some area, students who just
don’t think like the test is testing, and students who are far more
interested in something outside of school to “waste time” with
extra-hard school and homework often associated with the gifted
program. There are internet sites to help.
Let’s begin on a lighter note. Is It A Cheetah, stephanietolan.
com/is_it_a_cheetah.htm, by Stephanie Tolan, is a great analogy
for the gifted identification. Tolan details the difficulty identifying the “potential” cheetah… how do you measure potential?
She notes the trouble identifying the twice exceptional cheetah…
it’s not at all the same as using the cheetah’s characteristic spots.
And her Is It A Cheetah analogy is a great way to start the gifted
identification conversation with a teacher or grandparent. Enjoy!
What does it feel like to be the gifted child? Here’s a letter that
tries to get inside the head of the young gifted child, to offer the
teacher some insight into the child, and a bit of understanding
into pushy yet exhausted parents. Wenda Sheard’s A September
Secret, HoagiesGifted.org/september_secret.htm, makes it easy
to understand why the gifted child can have so much trouble sitting still and listening quietly in a Kindergarten, 1st or 2nd grade
class that offers no new learning for the autopedantic child.
When gifted identification is mentioned, someone in the area
is bound to utter the timeless phrase, “All children are gifted.”
Take a moment and read one response to this mindless comment,
All Children Are Gifted, www.HoagiesGifted.org/all_children.
htm, Editor’s Reflections by Michael C. Thompson, Editor, Our
Gifted Children. And don’t miss the education details he adds in
A Response to the “All Children are Gifted” Comment, www.
giftedkids.about.com/od/gifted101/a/gifted_response.htm. In it,
he recounts a second grader’s joke, similar to jokes heard in many
gifted homes. “Mom: We have to eat and run. Son: Like carnivorous pantyhose?” But don’t you know, All Children Are Gifted!
For observation-based identification of gifted children, Dr.
Linda Silverman and the Gifted Development Center (GDC)
in Denver have one of the largest qualitative data collections on
gifted and exceptionally gifted children. Read What We Have
Learned About Gifted Children, www.gifteddevelopment.com/
What_is_Gifted/learned.htm, highlights of the GDC’s 30 years of
assessment, including variations between girls and boys, and other
observations. Note that not all of the GDC observations are duplicated in research-based studies of gifted children. For example, while
the GDC observes that nearly 70% of their assessed children are introverts, other research studies suggest that the percent of introverts
/ extraverts may be closer to the 50%/50% observed in the general
population. Still, these observations are invaluable and are for the
most part not included in research-based studies anywhere else.
Moving to research-based identification of gifted children,
let’s visit the National Research Center on the Gifted and
Talented, NRC/GT at University of Connecticut in Storrs. This
21-questions True or False quiz on gifted research offers citations
for each question. You may be surprised at what the research says!
Distinguishing Myths From Realities: NRC/GT Research,
www.gifted.uconn.edu/nrcgt/newsletter/winter98/wintr983.
html, asks such simple questions as “Gifted children identified during their preschool years tend to stay ahead of other children with regard to academic performance.” NRC/GT research shows that this
is Reality, and offers us the research citation to back it up. Check
out their survey for 20 more research-based realities and myths
that you may hear in gifted education.
Whether you are a teacher, school counselor, psychologist, or
parent, you need to know how to use the child’s test scores to
determine gifted identification. If you are a psychologist or school
psychologist, you know that you are responsible for checking with
the test publisher for additional information released after the latest test protocol. If you use the WISC-IV for assessment of gifted
school-aged children, the additional information available from
the publisher includes bulletins on two additional scores affecting gifted identification, both released years after the WISC-IV
and its original scoring manual was published. The first bulletin,
WISC-IV Technical Report #4 General Ability Index, www.
pearsonassessments.com/hai/Images/pdf/wisciv/WISCIVTechReport4.pdf, tells psychologists about the alternative score recommended by the National Association for Gifted Children (NAGC)
for identification of gifted children. This General Ability Index
(GAI) score considers those subscales measuring characteristics
commonly associated with academic giftedness, while removing
subscales measuring other characteristics that are not as highly correlated with giftedness. For more details, read the NAGC position
paper, Use of the WISC-IV for Gifted Identification, www.nagc.
org/index.aspx?id=2455, which summarizes the use of the GAI
in gifted identification in a quick, easy to read form for “school
psychologists, coordinators of gifted programs, teachers, and all
professionals who determine placements based on IQ scores.”
The second bulletin, Technical Report #7 WISC–IV Extended
Norms, www.pearsonassessments.com/NR/rdonlyres/C1C19227BC7946D9-B43C-8E4A114F7E1F/0/WISCIV_TechReport_7.
pdf, offers an Extende d Score that supplements the WISC-IV Full
Scale score by giving credit for extra items the child may have gotten
correct, but were not included in the Full Scale score due to subtest
ceilings. This Technical Report defines to the assessment professional when the Extended Score should be calculated, and how to
calculate and report the Extended Score for the WISC-IV.
Parents should also be aware of the WISC-IV Technical Bulletins
because sometimes the testing professionals haven’t had the opportunity to keep current with these more recent publications from the
WISC-IV test publisher, now Pearson Assessment. In this case, this
knowledge gives parents questions to discuss with the assessor in
order to gain more details and better understand the results of their
child’s gifted assessment including the WISC-IV.
Are you a teacher? Miraca Gross and the University of New
South Wales created an entire professional development curriculum for teachers of the gifted, including a detailed section on
Gifted Identification, now offered free by the Australian Government. And before you say, “This isn’t Australia,” take the time
to review this excellent curriculum. The issues facing us, the students we’re educating us, and even the research supporting various
educational options are all common to our countries. Australia
and the United States are not nearly as far apart educationally as
they are geographically. Gifted Education Professional Development Package, www.dest.gov.au/sectors/school_education/publications_resources/profiles/gifted_education_professional_development_package.htm, includes Module Two, a comprehensive
module on gifted identification for early childhood, primary and
secondary grade teachers. Using both subjective and objective
measures and emphasizing multiple identification criteria, this
module pays particular attention to students from minority and
disadvantaged groups, of great import for gifted identification of
the diverse populations of both the U.S. and Australia.
Looking for more details on the Identification fo Gifted Students? Visit Hoagies’ Gifted Pages on Gifted Identification, www.
HoagiesGifted.org/identification.htm and Testing and Assessment
www.HoagiesGifted.org/testing.htm, for more Q&A, research,
books, and other resources on the identification and testing of gifted students… everything the gifted parent, teacher, or psychologist
needs to know but won’t find collected anywhere else.
Kids Korner and Teens Territory
One of the greatest fall activities for kids of all ages is Geocaching, www.geocaching.com. Autumn sports amazing days and cool
nights, gorgeous colors in the woods and great activities in the
cities and towns. And you can find all of these while Geocaching.
What is Geocaching, you ask? The easiest way to describe it is as a
world-wide hide-and-seek game with over 1.7 million hides so far,
all over the world… plus two on the International Space Station!
While most of us will never get to the ISS, we can try to find any
number of the rest of the geocaches (caches) here on earth. For
a quick video that explains it better in pictures than words, click
on the “Geocaching in 2 minutes” video link. And Geocaching
is a sport that appeals to all ages and styles of gifted kids because
you can cache in cities, suburbia or the back woods, you can find
caches that are tiny magnetic containers attached to commonplace
items, or large ammo cans hidden under trees in the woods, you
can walk a few feet from your house or car to the nearest cache, or
you can hike miles into the forest or desert to find a single cache.
Getting started with Geocaching is easy, too. Create a free
account at www.geocaching.com, and then under Play, you can
“Hide & Seek” caches in your area. I’m more visual, so I click
“Map this location” and see all my local caches on a street or satellite map. Many caches can be found without a GPS device, just by
printing the map and counting the number of buildings or trees
from a landmark. If you have a smart-phone, you have a GPS!
Download a free GPS app, type in the latitude and longitude from
the website, and you’re on your way to finding caches in the woods
and other places where an aerial map just won’t suffice.
Do your kids love puzzles? Check out the Puzzle Caches. Each
puzzle cache is unique; some require local knowledge (how many
lightening rods are on the top of the historic building at this location?), and others needing a flexible mind and keen brain (can
you solve this numeric puzzle and turn it into coordinates for a
cache?). Use the cache name and description as hints, and solve
the puzzles…or create and hide your own Puzzle Caches for others
to figure out and find!
The great thing about Geocaching is that you can do it yearround, where you live or where you travel, alone or with family and
friends. There are even Geocaching events, where groups of geocachers getting together to picnic, clean up a park, canoe, or even
celebrate geocaching milestones. Geocaching is fun for all ages!
For more on Geocaching, visit Hoagies’ Gifted Education Page:
Geocaching: The sport for gifted kids of all ages, www.HoagiesGifted.org/geocaching.htm
Some days we need indoor games, and this quarter we’ve got
computer-based games of all kinds for kids of all ages.
MathPlayground Logic Games, www.mathplayground.com/
logicgames.html, has great logic games for kids of all ages. I spent
several fun hours “testing” Factory Balls, a game where I had to
figure out how to apply the rules in the right order to follow the
logic steps to decorate the balls the way they needed to look. Kids
also recommend Civiballs, and many of the other logic games, but
I decided I’d spent enough “testing” time today!
Kids today love adventure games, and Lure of the Labyrinth,
www.labyrinth.thinkport.org combines a fun adventure game with
pre-algebra math problems… yes, math is fun. With a wealth of
intriguing math-based puzzles wrapped into an exciting narrative
game, students work to find their lost pet - and save the world
from monsters! Who knew math could be such an adventure?
For our youngest kids, PBS Kids, www.pbskids.org, offers a
great collection of fun, including math, reading, and just plain
fun games and activities. CyberChase, www.pbskids.org/cyber-
chase, is a fun math game, teaching kids that math is everywhere.
Kids Island,www.pbskids.org/island, is full of pre-reading fun for
kids age 2-5, and it’s available in English or Español. And The
Cat in the Hat Knows A Lot About That!, www.pbskids.org/catinthehat, offers online games and videos plus printable activities
to do at home! Some PBSKids games are designed especially for
mobile phones and tablets. And all the PBSKids sites offer hints
for Parents and Teachers using their sites, including information
on child development, pointers to different games that support
that development and even fun related activities to do together at
home. Leave it to PBS to offer the best online for our kids!
But sometimes we want to get our kids off the computers and
into the “real world.” Hoagies’ Gifted Kids & Teens: Smart Toys
and Games, www.HoagiesGifted.org/smart_toys.htm, is a collection of the most popular games for gifted kids. These are not the
games you’ll find in the big-box toy store, nor the “most popular”
games on the online-giant store’s site. Instead these games come
from small and medium-sized award-winning game companies
from the U.S. and around the world. These are the games that
our kids will cherish and keep to play with their kids, and family
game nights that everyone will remember for years to come.
Hoagies’ Gifted Kids & Teens: Smart Toys and Games is divided into categories, from Smart Games for Young Kids to Smart
A Response to the “All Children
are Gifted” Comment
www.giftedkids.about.com/od/
gifted101/a/gifted_response.htm
A September Secret
www.HoagiesGifted.org/september_
secret.htm
All Children Are Gifted
www.HoagiesGifted.org/all_children.htm
Distinguishing Myths
From Realities:
NRC/GT Research
www.gifted.uconn.edu/nrcgt/newsletter/
winter98/wintr983.html
Gifted Education Professional
Development Package
www.dest.gov.au/sectors/school_
education/publications_resources/
profiles/gifted_education_professional_
development
_package.htm
Hoagies’ Gifted:
Gifted Identification
www.HoagiesGifted.org/identification.htm
Hoagies’ Gifted:
Testing and Assessment
www.HoagiesGifted.org/testing.htm
Is It A Cheetah
www.stephanietolan.com/is_it_a
_cheetah.htm
Families and Party Games, from Smart Word Games to Smart
Math Games, from Smart Construction Toys to Smart Strategy
Games and more. Check out your favorite category, or visit them
all. And enjoy a Family Game Night this weekend! Here at Kastle
Kottmeyer we have 2 or more teens for any game night, plus often
teens’ parents, too. Our most recent favorite games are Dutch
Blitz, a fast-moving card game for 2-4 players, Dominion and all
its add-ons, a strategy card game for 2-4 players, Carcassone, a tile
laying game for 2-5 players, 10 Days In… a travel board game
for 2-4 players that comes in U.S.A., Europe, Africa, Asia, and
the Americas versions, and 7 Wonders, a card/board game for 3-7
players. Which ones will be your family favorites?
Enjoy all the great sites on the Kids Korner and Teens Territory
this issue, and we’ll be back next issue with even more interesting
internet sites to visit. Until then… n
Technical Report #4
WISC-IV General Ability Index
www.pearsonassessments.com/hai/Images/
pdf/wisciv/WISCIVTechReport4.pdf
Technical Report #7
WISC–IV Extended Norms
Carolyn Kottmeyer is the director and founder of
the award-winning Hoagies’ Gifted Education Page
HoagiesGifted.org and Hoagies’ Kids and Teens Page
HoagiesKids.org. Carolyn can be found on Facebook
at www.facebook.com/HoagiesGifted or on Twitter @
HoagiesGifted.
Kids Island
pbskids.org/island
The Cat in the Hat Knows
A Lot About That!
pbskids.org/catinthehat
www.pearsonassessments.com/NR/
rdonlyres/C1C19227-BC79-46D9B43C-8E4A114F7E1F/0/WISCIV_
TechReport
_7.pdf
Use of the WISC-IV for Gifted Identification
www.nagc.org/index.aspx?id=2455
Kids Korner
and Teens Territory
www.Geocaching
www.geocaching.com
Hoagies’ Gifted:
Geocaching: The sport
for gifted kids of all ages
www.HoagiesGifted.org/geocaching.htm
Hoagies’ Gifted Kids & Teens:
Smart Toys and Games
www.HoagiesGifted.org/smart_toys.htm
PBS Kids
www.pbskids.org
CyberChase
pbskids.org/cyberchase
Technology Ideas for Home and SchooL
By Barbara L. Branch
Khan
Academy
T
he theme of this issue of the GEC is Identifying Gifted
Learners. Teachers and parents are often looking for
ways to provide differentiated instruction for identified
students. Salman Khan, a graduate of MIT, created
Khan Academy by developing instructional videos for his cousins. He realized that many family members and friends could
use videos which he uploaded to YouTube. Now, Khan Academy
has over 3000 videos with instruction and practice in science,
math, social science, economics, banking, test prep, CST and
humanities. The topics are growing daily. Watch a video of
Khan discussing the Khan Academy at http://vodcasting.ning.
com/video/salman-khan-lets-use-video-to.
photo by dan nelson
Students and teachers can sign in with Facebook or Google
accounts. The site is totally free and can be used by individuals or classes of students. As individuals proceed through the
courses, details of their progress are shown in charts in their
profile. After completing a video, students can comment or ask
further questions in a chat room style. There are practice sessions and assessments. Teachers can review the progress of each
student in their class in a statistical format.
The videos are shown on a tablet using software that allows
for writing and drawing. Only Khan’s voice is heard in the videos as you watch the tablet light up with drawing and writing
to explain the concept being taught. I watched several Physics
videos and enjoyed Khan’s friendly, casual, but very instructive delivery. I like his style of presenting in very small bite-size
chunks that should inform any type of learner.
Watch the video at www.http://singularityhub.com/2011/02/13/yes-the-khan-academy-is-the-future-of-education-video/ to
get an excellent overview of the structure of the Kahn Academy.
The use of the Khan Academy to support curriculum opens a
revolutionary discussion of the approach to teaching and learning. At this point in the revolution of technology, we should
suggest that Khan Academy not be used as a replacement for a
curriculum. It should be used as a resource and supplement for
a curriculum that also includes problem solving and concept
development. Using the videos to supplement teacher instruction leaves the teacher with more opportunity to provide a human connection to students as a tutor, supporter, and a connection to the real world.
Below are various ways Kahn Academy videos can be used
to implement strategies of differentiation and instruction for
parents and teachers:
1. Compacting
Teachers: Khan Academy videos can be used to compact a
unit of instruction for quicker, more advanced learners. Students can progress through a topic such as algebra in less time
than it would take to study the same topic in the regular classroom pace. This would work well for a cluster group of gifted
learners in a regular classroom or even a single gifted student.
The teacher does not have to provide instruction but is available
for assistance.
Parents: Students, who are working through a unit of study
faster than their classmates, can view the videos at home. Parents should view the videos with the students, to understand
what is being taught and to assist when necessary.
2. Flipped classroom
Teachers: Historically, teachers have lectured or presented
lessons during the school day and then assigned homework for
students to practice the topic of the lecture. In the flipped classroom, teachers video their lectures and assign them for homework. Students then return to school the next day to practice
what they viewed the night before The teacher is available to assist with questions and misunderstandings. With Khan Academy,
teachers can assign Khan’s videos to view as homework instead
of videotaping their own lectures. The videos can be viewed and
reviewed as many times as necessary to help the student learn the
information in the lesson. See http://connectedprincipals.com/
archives/1534 for a further discussion of the flipped classroom.
Parents: Parents can support the flipped classroom by viewing the videos with their children. Parents will know what is
being taught and can assist with practice and test preparation.
You might even learn something new.
3. Homeschooling
Teachers & Parents: In homeschooling, parents become
teachers. Many gifted children are homeschooled because the
regular school program does not provide enough challenge.
Khan Academy videos can be used by homeschoolers to learn
new topics. Kahn provides practice and assessment.
4. Finding and filling the gaps
Teachers: Khan suggests that all students begin with the basic exercises. When you get 10 right answers in a row, you are
prompted to move to the next level. At any time that you need a
hint or need to watch an instructional video, you can do so and
then return to the practice exercises. There is also a scratchpad
built in so that paper and pencil are not needed.
Teachers can use the exercises to pre-test and then compact
or accelerate a unit of study. Students can skip through material
they know, to arrive at a new level of study they have not experienced. Students can also view a video and do practice exercises
to fill a skill gap.
Parents: Parents can ask a child to review a video that focuses
on a skill that is lacking or weak. By reviewing the videos and
engaging in the exercises, the student can “catch up” with what
was missed or with what needs reinforcement while the class
moves forward with the next lesson. The student is working in
their own private environment, so there is no embarrassment
about what they do not know or where they need extra practice. Parents don’t have to be coercive or know how to support
the learning. Parents just have to support the use of the videos
and exercises
5. Sick days, snow days, and vacation
Teachers: When students are out ill, they often miss valuable
class lectures and discussions. With Khan Academy, students
can watch a video of the topics they missed. When districts
have snow days they could ask students to review Khan Academy
videos. It would keep students engaged on days they should be
in school and parents would be very happy to have students
engaged in something educational.
Parents: Parents can ask their children to review Khan Academy
videos of the school core content while home ill, or when a snow
day or vacation occurs. Students stay current with their school
work and parents feel that the time at home is not wasted.
6. Learning Contracts & Learning Centers
Teachers: When teachers use learning contracts or learning
centers, they are matching students’ readiness to the students’
interests and learning styles. Khan Academy can be a learning
center station where students watch videos and do practice exercises on the topics for which they are ready.
Learning contracts often allow students to explore an area of
interest that is an offshoot of the current core curriculum that
will not be explored by other students in the class. The contract
allows a student to explore a topic with more depth and complexity. The Khan Academy videos may not provide the depth
and complexity, but can be a springboard for further research
by the student. For example, Kahn created a video on Communism to support some of the history videos he has created.
Students could use the information provided in this video to
challenge and master it rather than give up for “fear of failure.”
Parents: Allow your child to use Khan Academy to review and
practice lessons that are not mastered. Your perfectionistic child
may resist practice and review when others are aware of their
struggles. Motivation will return when the student is allowed
to explore the areas of failure in a personal lesson and practice
arena. Taking a risk can become appreciated when one is not
constantly judged by others, including teachers and student
peers. See what happens when your child takes the challenge
of learning through Khan Academy. “We often learn more from
trying something and not succeeding than we do from trying
something and succeeding, especially if we limit ourselves to
only trying “easy” things that we know we’ll be successful at”
(from http://thefischbowl.blogspot.com/.) The best thing about
Khan Academy is that students will try and can succeed.
Teachers: Teachers create flexible groups to provide remediation or advanced lessons. Instead of gathering students in a flexible group with teacher support, students can work with Khan
Academy as a flexible group and allow the teacher to work with
students who need direct teacher support. When I was teaching
in the 1980’s I had a classroom aid that could help students
with remediation or advanced support. Today, Khan Academy
can be my classroom aid.
Parents: Parents can support flexible grouping by encouraging their child to take on the learnings of Khan Academy.
8. Common Core State Standards
help them understand and begin to ask questions about Communism that would lead to further research.
Parents: Your child might express an interest in a topic that
emerges in the classroom instruction. Using the same example,
as above, the child might show an interest in learning more
about Communism as the class is learning about the Soviet
Union in World History. You could encourage the viewing of
the information in Khan Academy about Communism. The
video would then lead to other questions and an interest in further research by the student on their own. Gifted students often
find interest in topics that emerge in class but are not discussed
further. The Khan Academy allows for the beginning of further
research to supplement the students’ interests.
7. Building Motivation
Teachers: Gifted children are often unmotivated to continue
to learn when they feel frustrated by failure. These gifted students are perfectionist and often have fear of failure. The Khan
Academy videos can provide a way for gifted students to review
and practice a new learning without fear of others knowing that
they have failed. The student can review and practice as much
as is needed until mastery is reached. This will provide motivation to continue to improve. It might teach children to take a
Teachers: California and 47 other state are adopting the
Common Core State Standards (CCSS) and merging them with
the common core state content standards. The beauty of the
CCSS is they require more depth and complexity. There are
practice standards and concept standards asking students to go
deeper into higher level thinking skills. Khan Academy provides
students with the opportunity to acquire the practice standards.
Khan Academy is beginning to develop videos that help students
practice problem solving or delve deeper into concepts. I would
encourage Kahn to continue to develop videos that encourage
students to go deeper.
Parents: Parents can help their children to obtain the Common Core State Standards by using Khan Academy to review or
advance forward in new areas of learning.
Have fun with Khan Academy. Send me your thought and experiences. drbabs@starstream.net and www.drbabs.wikispaces.com. n
BARBARA L. BRANCH, Ed.D., teaches two professional development courses in two Certificate Programs for educators. in the Sacramento area. She is retired from 35 years
in the Sacramento City Unified School District where she
served gifted children as a teacher, principal, and district
gifted director. She is a member of the board of directors for
the California Association for the Gifted as the educator representative from the Capital Region and is chairman of the
Capital Region GATE Consortium. She also teaches geocaching to 4th and 5th graders in the Academic Talent Search
Program at Sacramento State University.
book reviews
Teaching ADVANCED LEARNERS in the General Education Classroom
By Joan Franklin Smutney
and S.E. von Fremd
(2011) Corwin Press
Paperback, Thousand Oaks, CA
$34.95, 188 pp.
ISBN 978- 1 -4129- 7545- 2
A
REVIEWED BY CHRISTINE HOEHNER
n often-heard plight: “I love
bright learners in my room. I just
don’t have time to make special
studies, activities, lessons for these
advanced kids.”
Here is the remedy book.
TEACHING ADVANCED LEARNERS
in the General Education Classroom, by
Joan Franklin Smutney and S.E. von
Fremd.
Honoring the educator and profession,
authors Smutney and von Fremd acknowledge that the readers of their book have little time, few funds and may have little or
no training in educating gifted students.
I particularly love that this book provides
simple strategies to engage all the students
and that the chapters are short and to the
point, especially in this climate where
there is not enough time, money or possibly expertise.
The book quotes Theodore Roosevelt:
“Do what you can,
with what you have,
where you are.”
Chapter 1 shares the nuts and bolts
of do “with what you have” for a bright
learner. Within this chapter is a fact sheet
that asks the question “should gifted learners be a priority?” The five bullets included
on the fact sheet, clearly lay out the arguments for why they are not a priority and
why they should be; pointing to the understanding that without attending to this
need, the next generation will be deprived
of innovators that can successfully compete in the global market.
Contained in Chapter 2, are many ideas
for resources.
I’m particularly fond of the excerpt
from a teacher who reluctantly acquiesced when the parent (of a bright child)
asked if she could help in the classroom.
Albeit reluctantly agreed and in agreeing, the teacher found a tremendous
resource. Yes, some parents have different agendas in volunteering, but most
are genuine in caring and ready to be
of help. In my Highly Gifted classes,
I would voraciously collect parent occupations and interests, and then offer
(after 1 session of parent training) “Mini
Courses”, four one-hour sessions each
taught by a parent. Here, the “Do what
you can” often pays off for more than
just the learners. Parents really are a tremendous resource.
Chapter 4 is by itself, worth owning
this book; here Smutney and von Fremd
enumerate many strategies for “Meeting the Needs of Advanced Students”.
The authors put forth many important
considerations – looking at classroom
space, daily routines and atmosphere –
and that these support student safety,
sharing, security, and comfort. Included
are ideas for pacing, assessing levels of
thinking, application to the arts. Best
of all, suggestions abound in this chap-
ter, for taking the material the teacher is
using and the thinking processes needed
and tweaking them in ways that the authors call ‘low preparation adjustment”.
Couple this idea with a whole section on
“anchoring changes to what the teacher
is already doing” and meeting the needs
of bright students becomes less formidable than thinking that the whole content
or curriculum has to be revised. Very appealing. The “where you are.”
The other six chapters in the book
Teaching Advanced Learners are equally
meritorious. Discerning appropriate
goals, beginning strategies (personal
and academic for students), groupings
(or individual) for optimal learning at
higher levels, assessments, extending
learning in the content areas (Language
Arts, Social Studies, Math, Science) are
clearly delineated. The “What you can,
where you are”.
My very favorite chapter, though, is
Chapter 8. Here the encouragement for
“falling in love with something” is presented. Really loving to stretch the students’ minds to figure out the problem
or project is enervating, exciting, yes,
even challenging! Whether it be academic, artistic, intellectual, creative, or
emotional, Chapter 8 encourages finding something irresistibly good about
teaching. Becoming passionate. Finding
that intensely interesting educational
something that will thrive on its own
strength against criticism, will lift the
energy that comes with personal fulfillment, and will keep the focus magnetized toward the goal in the face of interruptions. “Falling in Love.”
A thoroughly enjoyable and enlightening book, TEACHING ADVANCED
LEARNERS in the General Education
Classroom is a definite must as a resource
in every classroom.
Christine Hoehner is Associate Editor for Book Reviews
for the Gifted Education Communicator. She is retired
from the Glendale Unified School District gifted program
in southern California and can be reached at chrishoehner@yahoo.com
R ef e r e n c e s c o ntinued from p. 12: best practices in the identification of gifted and talented students
American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (1999). Standards for educational
and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American
Educational Research Association.
Borland, J. H., Schnur, R., & Wright, L. (2000). Economically disadvantaged students in a school for the academically gifted:
A post-positivist inquiry into individual and family adjustment. Gifted Child Quarterly, 44, 13-32.
Castellano, J. A. (1998). Identifying and assessing gifted and
talented bilingual Hispanic students (Report No. EDO-RC97-9). Charleston, WV: ERIC Clearinghouse on Rural Education and Small Schools. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED. 423104).
Coleman, L. J., & Cross, T. L. (2005). Being gifted in school: An introduction to development, guidance, and teaching. Waco,
TX: Prufrock Press.
Cornell, D. G., Delcourt, M. A. B., Goldberg, M. D., & Bland, L. C.
(1995). Achievement and self-concept of minority students in
elementary school gifted programs. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 18, 189-209.
Daniels, V. I. (1998). Minority students in gifted and special education programs: The case for educational equity. Journal of
Special Education, 32, 41-44.
Fernández, A. T., Gay, L. R., Lucky, L F., Gavilan, M. R.
(1998). Teacher perceptions of gifted Hispanic limited
English proficient students. Journal for the Education of
the Gifted, 21, 335-351.
Ford, D. Y., & Harmon, D. A. (2001). Equity and excellence: Providing access to gifted education for culturally diverse students. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 12, 141–148.
Ford, D. Y., & Harris, J. J. III (1994). Multicultural gifted education. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Gagné, F. (1999). My convictions about the nature of abilities, gifts, and talents. Journal for the Education of the
Gifted, 22, 109-136.
Geary, D. C., & Brown, S. C. (1991). Cognitive addition: Strategy
choice and speed-of-processing difference in gifted, normal,
and mathematically disabled children. Developmental Psychology, 27, 398-406.
Harris, B., Plucker, J. A., Rapp, K. E., & Martinez, R. S.
(2009). Identifying gifted and talented English language
learners: A case study. Journal for the Education of the
Gifted, 32, 368-393.
Jensen, A. R. (1980). Bias in mental testing. New York,
NY: Free Press.
Johnsen, S. K. (2008). Identifying gifted and talented learners.
In F. Karnes & K. Stephens, Achieving excellence: Educating
the gifted and talented (pp. 135-153). New York, NY: Merrill
Education/Prentice Hall.
Johnsen, S. K. (2011a). Using standards to design identification
procedures. Tempo, 31(2), 8-15.
Johnsen, S. K. (2011b). Making decisions about placement. In
S. K. Johnsen (Ed.), Identifying students: A practical guide
(2nd ed., pp. 119-149). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
Johnsen, S. K. (2012). The assessment standard in gifted education: Identifying gifted students. In S. K. Johnsen (Ed.) NAGC
Pre-K-Grade 12 gifted education programming standards: A
guide to planning and implementing high-quality services
(pp. 71-96). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
Johnsen, S. K., Haensly, P., Ryser, G., & Ford, R. (2002). Changing general education classroom practices to adapt for gifted
students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 46, 45-63.
Johnsen, S. K., & Ryser, G. (1994). Identification of young gifted
children from lower income families. Gifted and Talented
International, 9(2), 62–68.
Joseph, L., & Ford, D. Y. (2006). Nondiscriminatory assessment: Considerations for gifted education. Gifted Child
Quarterly, 50, 42-51.
Kitano, M. K., & Pedersen, K. S. (2002). Action research and
practical inquiry: Multicultural-content integration in gifted
education: Lessons from the field. Journal for the Education
of the Gifted, 26, 269-289.
Kurtz, B. E., & Weinert, F. E. (1989). Metacognition, memory performance, and causal attributions in gifted and average children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 48, 45-61.
Lidz, C. S. (1991). Practitioner’s guide to dynamic assessment.
New York, NY: Guilford.
Louis, B., & Lewis, M. (1992). Parental beliefs about giftedness in
young children and their relation to actual ability level. Gifted
Child Quarterly, 36, 27-31.
Maker, C. J. (1996). Identification of gifted minority students: A
national problem, needed changes, and a promising solution. Gifted Child Quarterly, 40, 41-50.
Marland, S. P., Jr. (1972). Education of the gifted and talented: Report to the Congress of the United States by the
U. S. Commissioner. Washington, DC: U. S. Government
Printing Office.
McCoach, D. B., Kehle, T. J., Bray, M. A., & Siegle, D. (2001). Best
practices in the identification of gifted students with learning
disabilities. Psychology in the Schools, 38, 403-411.
National Association for Gifted Children (2010). NAGC Pre-KGrade 12 gifted programming standards: A blueprint for
quality gifted education programs. Washington, DC: Author.
Neumeister, K. L., Adams, C. M., Pierce, R. L., Cassady, J.
C., & Dixon, F. A. (2007). Fourth-grade teachers’ perceptions of giftedness: Implications for identifying and serving diverse gifted students. Journal for the Education of
the Gifted, 30, 479-499.
Passow, A. H., & Frasier, M. M. (1996). Toward improving identification of talent potential among minority and disadvantaged
students. Roeper Review, 18, 198-202.
Pierce, R. L., Adams, C. M., Speirs Neumeister, K. L., Cassady,
J. C., Dixon, F. A., & Cross, T. L. (2007). Development of an
identification procedure for a large urban school corporation: Identifying culturally diverse and academically gifted
elementary students. Roeper Review, 29, 113-118.
Plata, M., & Masten, W. (1998). Teacher ratings of Hispanic
and Anglo students on a behavior rating scale. Roeper
Review, 21, 139-144.
Renzulli, J. (1978). What makes giftedness? Reexamining a definition. Phi Delta Kappan, 60, 180-184.
Robins, J. H., & Jolly, J. L. (2011). Technical information regarding assessment. In S. K. Johnsen (Ed.), Identifying gifted
students: A practical guide (2nd ed., pp. 75-118). Waco, TX:
Prufrock Press.
Ryser, G. R. (2011a). Fairness in testing and nonbiased
assessment. In S. K. Johnsen (Ed.), Identifying gifted
students: A practical guide (2nd ed., pp. 63-74). Waco,
TX: Prufrock Press.
Ryser, G. R. (2011b). Qualitative and quantitative approaches to assessment. In S. K. Johnsen (Ed.), Identifying
gifted students: A practical guide (2nd ed., pp. 37-61).
Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
Salvia, J., Ysseldyke, J. E., & Bolt, S. (2007). Assessment (10th
ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton-Mifflin.
Scott, M. S., Perou, R., Urbano, R., Hogan, A., & Gold, S. (1992).
The identification of giftedness: A comparison of white, Hispanic and black families. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36, 131-139.
Scruggs, T., & Mastropieri, M. (1985). Spontaneous verbal elaborations in gifted and nongifted youths. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 9, 1-10.
Subotnik, R. F., Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Worrell, F. C. (2011).
Rethinking giftedness and gifted education: A proposed
direction forward based on psychological science. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 12(1), 3-54. DOI:
10.1177/1529100611418056
Swanson, H. L., & Lussier, C. M. (2001). A selective synthesis of
the experimental literature on dynamic assessment. Review
of Educational Research, 71, 321-363.
Tannenbaum, A. (2003). Nature and nurture of giftedness. In N.
Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education
(3rd ed.; pp. 45-59). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Trice, B., & Shannon, B. (2002, April). Office for Civil Rights:
Ensuring equal access to gifted education. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Council for Exceptional Children, New York.
U. S. Department of Education (1993). National excellence report: A case for developing America’s talent.
Washington, DC: Author.
VanTassel-Baska, J., Feng, A. X., & Evans, B. L. (2007). Patterns
of identification and performance among gifted students
identified through performance tasks: A three-year analysis.
Gifted Child Quarterly, 51, 218-231.
VanTassel-Baska, J., Johnson, D., & Avery, L. D. (2002). Using
performance tasks in the identification of economically
disadvantaged and minority gifted learners: Findings from
Project STAR. Gifted Child Quarterly, 46, 110-123.
Advertising Rates
Gifted Education Communicator, the online journal of the California Association for the Gifted is published fourtimes per year: Spring, Summer, Fall and Winter. Gifted Education Communicator features articles and columns
by nationally known leaders in the field of gifted education. The GEC is produced as an 8.5x11 layout in both flash
and pdf formats. Mechanical Specs: Submit art/copy as file or on disk in appropriate online formatting.
DISPLAY RATES
DIMENSIONS
Ad Type A
B
C
D
E
1x bundle rate
(Spring GEC &
CAG Conference
Program Book)
Ad Unit
1x
2x
3x
4x
Inside back $1,000 $1,750 $2,500 $3,250
full page
Full Page $500
$950
$1,350 $1,700
$950
2/3 page $400
$760
$1,080 $1,360
$950
1/2 page $350
$660
$930
$1,160
$950
1/3 page $250
$460
$630
$760
$950
1/4 page $200
$360
$480
$560
$950
1/6 page $150
$260
$330
$360
$950
Ad Unit
Full Page
2/3 page
1/2 page (vert)
1/2 page (horiz)
1/3 page
1/4 page
1/6 page
Closing Dates:
Spring - January 15 - Summer - April 15
Fall - July 15 - Winter - October 15
For information, contact:
GECeditor@aol.com
or call 916-988-3999
Size (inches, W x H)
7 1/4 x 9 3/4
4 3/4 x 9 3/4
3 1/2 x 9 3/4
7 1/4 x 4 3/4
2 1/4 x 9 3/4
3 1/2 x 4 3/4
2 1/4 x 4 3/4
1/4
Full
1/3
2/3
1/2
(horiz)
1/2
(vert)
1/6
Company Name
Contact name
address
CITY
STATE
ZIP
Telephone
FAXE-MAIL
Ad Type
A
BCDE
AD unit
Inside back cover, full page
Full Page
2/3 page
1/2 page (vert.)
1/2 page (horiz.)
1/3 page
1/4 page
1/6 page
ISSUE
Spring
Summer
Fall
Winter
PAYMENTEnclosed is payment of US $ Check No.
Visa
Card No.
Exp. Date
MasterCard
Card No.
Exp. Date
Signature
Please mail completed order form with check & artwork to CAG Office,
9278 Madison Avenue, Orangevale, CA 95662
Thank
You
for Being a Member of the
9278 Madison Avenue
Orangevale, CA 95662
California Association for the Gifted
Parents and educators in the California Association for the Gifted (CAG) have been the principal supporters of gifted
learners in California since 1966. The program benefits that gifted children enjoy today are a direct result of that support
online go to www.cagifted.org/registernewmembers.cfm
Want to Join? ToTo join
print a form go to www.cagifted.org/associations/7912/files/MembershipFormOrangevale.pdf
Need to Renew? To renew go to www.cagifted.org/payduesmbrtype.cfm
MEMBERSHIP APPLICATION
Ten Reasons
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
If you are not already a CAG member, please use the application below to become a continuing supporter of gifted education. CAG is active in lobbying efforts to
promote appropriate education for gifted and talented students and assigns $5.00 of each membership to CAG/PAC, CAG’s Political Action Committee. Dues payments are not tax deductible as charitable contributions for federal income tax purposes.
Name:
Last
First
Middle Initial
why you should be a Member
of the California Association
for the Gifted:
Preferred Mailing Address:
City / State / Zip :
Your membership supports CAG’s work with the California department of Education
E-Mail Aand
ddreCalifornia’s
ss:
PrefeinrreCalifornia.
d Phone: (
legislators, to ensure that gifted education continues
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Calif. County:
Your membership supports scholarships and grants recognizing educational
)
School
excellence,and awards honoringDistrict:
distinguished service in the field of gifted education.
Special Skills/Interests
Grandparent
Computers
Art/Music
Your membership entitles you to the Gifted
Education Communicator, CAG’s
quarterly
Parent
Advocacy/Legislation
Humanities
journal,
and the Intercom, the organization’s
newsletter. These are important
Teacher
Other
resources
for parents and educators. Math
Other
Science
Membership/Service Category
Role
Individual
($75)
Administrator/Coordinator
Your membership supports research and development,
books, position papers, and
2-year
Board ofthat
Education
Member
otherIndividual
resources ($140)
focusing on issues, policies, and practices
impact the
education
Family
($85)
Consultant
of gifted and talented students.
Life ($1000)
Counselor/Psychologist
Institution
($100)
Your membership supports CAG’s Teacher Institutes, Parent Institutes, and a
Your membership entitles you to reduced registration fees for the annual conference
Credential
Program
Student
($50)
California
Foundation
for events.
Gifted Education was formed in July of 2006 to make a positive differcertificate program that teach theory and practice essential to the education of gifted
and other CAG
Advisor
Signature:
students. The positive “spillover” effect for all students is well documented. ence in the lives of gifted children and youth by generating funds to support research and developLimited Income ($25)
ment, scholarships, and gifted education projects. Please consider making a tax-deductible donation.
Gifted
Education
Communicator
—
online
subscription
only
($45)
I also wishYour
to make
a tax-deductible
the amount
Your membership supports the volunteer services of parent and educator representaCAG membership
makescontribution
you part of thein TEAM
workingoffor$ gifted education.
(for mailing
addresses
outside
the
U.S.,
please
add
$15)
to
the
California
Foundation
for
Gifted
Education.
tives in each region, who provide resources at a local level.
Payment
PerYour
sonamembership
l Check #: supports CAG’s website, www.cagifted.org, an important resource
CHARGE:
Diswith
trict information
Check #: about gifted education and CAG news and events.
Card #:
Purchase Order #:
Signature:
Please mail with check or charge information to:
California Association for the Gifted, 9278 Madison Avenue, Orangevale, CA 95662
Phone: 1-916-988-3999 e-mail: CAGOffice@aol.com website: www.CAGifted.org
MasterCyour
ard membershipVinisaCAG, you clearlyAmdemonstrate
erican Exprthat
ess you actively support Through
Exp. Date:
gifted education in California.

Gifted Learners - Gifted Education Communicator

Transcription

Similar documents

Learn more!

Mikayla, Year 6 Brighton-le-Sands Public School Bracelet

Newsletter - McFarland School District

Volume 1, Issue 2 - Halifax Regional School Board

here - Laveen Elementary School

December 2015 - Mount Pleasant Area School District

Put the date in your diary NOW!

Understanding IQ Testing

7th March - The Heights School