Iowa ASCD Banner
Special Edition:  Serving the Gifted        The Source
March 9, 2012
Who Are the Gifted?

One of the biggest challenges in the field of gifted education has been how to define the term "gifted."  Numerous experts all the way back to Louis Terman in the 1920's have had their own ideas about it, and the definitions developed over time have illustrated the evolving nature of our understanding and conceptions of what it means to be gifted. Even though the definitions can vary in significant ways, ideas common to many include:
  • giftedness occurs in domains
  • it includes outstanding performance and/or potential
  • there is a marked difference in intellectual capacity
The National Association for Gifted Children (NAGC) recently released a definition of gifted which can be summarized as follows:
"Gifted individuals are those who demonstrate outstanding levels of aptitude or competence in one or more domains."

Iowa is one of only six states that mandates gifted programming and fully funds that mandate. To see how Iowa requirements compare to those of other states, one might visit the Davidson Institute of Talent Development for a state-by-state compilation of gifted education policies.

Iowa Code 257.44 defines gifted and talented children as follows:  "Gifted and talented children" are those identified as possessing outstanding abilities who are capable of high performance.  Gifted and talented children are children who require appropriate instruction and educational services commensurate with their abilities and needs beyond those provided by the regular school program.

"Gifted and talented children include those children with demonstrated achievement or potential ability, or both, in any of the following areas or in combination:
  • General intellectual ability
  • Creative thinking
  • Leadership ability
  • Visual and performing arts ability
  • Specific ability aptitude."
What Do Gifted Children Need?

Myths about gifted children and gifted education abound and range from "If they're all that smart they can challenge themselves" to "They need to learn to play the game." Myths impede the ability of gifted children to receive the programming and services they need and deserve. It is, therefore, critical to challenge these myths and the assumptions underpinning them to get to the heart of the issue: Gifted children are found in all schools in Iowa; and they have the same education right as every other child, which is to learn something new every day in school. To explore ten common myths about gifted education, take a look at the video "Top Ten Myths in Gifted Education" created by a group of Maryland high school students. Another listing "Distinguishing Myths from Realities: NRC/GT Research" compiled by Drs. Marcia Gentry and Karen Kettle was published in the 1998 Winter newsletter of the National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented at the University of Connecticut.  Click here to explore that list and the realities which debunk each myth.

In the article "Lessons Learned About Educating the Gifted and Talented: A Synthesis of the Research on Educational Practice" (Gifted Child Quarterly, Fall 2007; 51(4)), Dr. Karen Rogers identifies five lessons suggested by the research on the education of the gifted and talented. These lessons provide guidance to the teacher, administrator, and parent as they collaborate to provide appropriate programming and services for gifted learners.
  • Lesson 1: Gifted and talented children need daily challenge  in their specific areas of talent.
  • Lesson 2: Opportunities should be provided on a regular basis for gifted learners to be unique and to work independently in their areas of passion and talent.
  • Lesson 3: Provide various forms of subject-based and grade-based acceleration to gifted learners as their educational needs require.
  • Lesson 4: Provide opportunities for gifted learners to socialize and to learn with like-ability peers.
  • Lesson 5: For specific curriculum areas, instructional delivery must be differentiated in pace, amount of review and practice, and organization of content presentation.
For more information on each of these research-supported lessons, visit Sage Publishing to obtain the article.

HoagiesThose wanting to enhance their knowledge about gifted education can visit Hoagies Gifted 101.  School administrators have a key role in gifted education. Dr. Joyce VanTassel Baska's provides a listing of "Ten Things All Administrators Need to Know About Gifted Education."  Parents, too, have an important role in gifted education.  Check out the Resources for Parents on Hoagies web site.
How Do We Find and Identify the Gifted?

Once we know who we are looking for, as stated in the definition, (see above "Who Are the Gifted?), we need to align our identification process and tools with that definition.  In seeking "children who require appropriate instruction and educational services commensurate with their abilities and needs beyond those provided by the regular school program, we are led to this bottom-line question:  "Does this student have needs that fall beyond the grade-/course-level curriculum?"  Notice, the question is NOT: "Who is gifted?"  

"Beyond the regular school program" implies that we will use assessments of the grade- or course-level core curriculum to determine needs.  If a student has already mastered the majority of the requirements and/or could do so at a faster pace, s/he needs to be identified and a PEP (Personalized Education Plan) needs to specify needs and the services that will be provided.  Those services should align with the area(s) of strength.  The use of "multiple selection criteria," including both objective and subjective data, and the requirement to  identify from the "total student population" (K - 12, including subgroups) requires ongoing data collection and analysis. Sources may include standardized achievement and ability measures, classroom assessments, student products and performances, checklists of behavioral characteristics (both positive and negative), portfolios, evidence from the home setting, and any other sources of evidence that are available.

ITAGSince standardized and other sources of data at the primary level are not  as readily available, other methods of data collection should be pursued.  ITAG President Linda Moehring's article on pages 10-16 of the organization's newsletter, "Gifted Programming That Begins in Kindergarten," lays out a clear plan for collecting needed evidence for young students.  Checklists of behavioral characteristics are also helpful to educators and parents of primary-aged students. 

Decision making about gifted identification should take place within a committee setting.  That committee should look periodically at how the demographics of the district are reflected in the pool of identified students (e.g., low-SES, culturally diverse, at-risk).  Students with disabilities should also be considered, as some may be "twice exceptional."  Those students, identified both as having a disability and an area(s) of giftedness, need opportunities to develop their areas of strength, as well as strategies to accommodate the disability.  Gifted underachievers are also in need of services and should not be excluded from the program because of non-performance issues. Often, appropriate academic services, along with needed support from an educator with whom the student has a good relationship, are enough to move the underachiever forward.  Because these categories of gifted students aren't readily apparent and because some teachers tend to identify only the "teacher pleasers," professional development about the local process and criteria for identification is essential. 

The basic process for identification includes the following:
  • Nomination:  A student may be nominated by teacher, parent, self or peer, or by data sources at any time.
  • Profile Development:  Data collection from multiple sources and any needed additional data should be gathered.
  • Profile Evaluation:  Does analysis of this student profile indicated a need for services "beyond the regular school program"?  If the answer is yes, that student is identified.  If the answer is no, that student is watched for potential future identification.
  • PEP Development:  If the student is identified, a Personalized Education Plan (PEP) is written to document the student needs and types of services that will be provided.  Note that there should be no distinction between formal and informal as the students are identified or they are not identified.
  • Evaluation:  A student's PEP is reviewed annually (at minimum) to determine needed revisions and need for continuing services.  
How Do We Serve the Gifted?

Although extensive research exists about what works for gifted learners, classroom practice doesn't often reflect that research.  This is evident when we examine what we know about the various types of acceleration. Nation Deceived: How Schools Hold Back America's Brightest Students pulls together more than 5 decades of research on 18 different types of acceleration and spells out the  reasons educators resist implementation.   The report indicates that many teachers are not familiar with acceleration, are not confident about implementing it, sometimes have personal beliefs that conflict with acceleration and may believe that keeping same-age peers together is the most effective way to educate our students. For the "quick and dirty" summary of the research, see "The 20 Most Important Points" on page 2 of Nation Deceived,Volume I. 

Of particular interest, whole-grade acceleration (grade-skipping) decisions that were once excruciatingly difficult, can now be based on a specific student profile analysis through the use of The Iowa Acceleration Scale.  This tool helps educators and parents analyze all the factors that should be considered for an individual student.  The process results in a specific recommendation concerning whole-grade acceleration (WGA) and provides a planning framework.

Other research compilations that provide solid direction on types of differentiation are specified in Karon Rogers' "Research Synthesis on Gifted Provisions" and Sally Reis's article, "Research That Supports the Need for and Benefits of Gifted Education."  Rogers'  research provides effect sizes that tell us cluster grouping and curriculum compacting (as well as others) are especially effective.  Reis's article states "Grouping gifted students together for instruction increases achievement for gifted students, and in some cases, also for students who are achieving at average and below average levels." Reis provides 34 research briefs to support these best-practice generalizations.

While serving students in academic content areas is important, it is also imperative that we provide gifted students with opportunities to pursue topics/problems based on their own interests.  Renzulli and Reis have developed a model for Type III Enrichment (see pp 44-46 of "Developing Creative Productivity in Young People through the Pursuit of Ideal Acts of Learning") in which students undertake investigations and artistic productions in the manner of the practicing professional.  Students identify a real world problem to investigate, use appropriate methodology and develop a creative product designed to impact an authentic audience. This model takes us away from the learn-it/report it mode into the engaging, authentic learning experiences.

In addition to meeting cognitive needs of identified gifted students, Iowa Code manadates that we address "affective" (i.e., social-emotional) needs.  These include opportunities to learn with others of like ability and to address issues related to perfectionism, feelings of being different, risk taking, stress, and intensity.  "An Interview with Jean Sunde Peterson:  About Social and Emotional Needs of the Gifted" provides a succinct summary."Overexciteabilty and the Highly Gifted Child" by Sharon Lind addresses intensity, sensitivity, and overexcitability.  This article identifies inborn intensitites in many gifted individuals that indicate a heightened ability to respond to psychomotor, intellectual, sensual, imaginational, and emotional stimuli. 

Although we would like to see every gifted student learning at appropriate levels, we must admit that every reader of The Source can probably identify gifted underachievers in their midst.  Learn more about possible reasons and potential interventions from Reis and McCoach in "The Underachievement of Gifted Students: What Do We Know and Where Do We Go?"  Share what you learn and advocate for your district's gifted learners so they will not become casualties of a system that is uninformed and non-responsive to their needs.
Why Do the Gifted Need Services?

It's the law! Iowa mandates require us to identify and serve students "who require appropriate instruction and educational services commensurate with their abilities and needs beyond those provided by the regular school program."  

But beyond compliance, here are BETTER reasons to serve our gifted learners:

Eleanor Roosevelt said it best, "The surest way to make it hard for children is to make it easy for them."  We must be challenging our gifted learners and supporting them in taking intellectual risks.  Gifted students who "coast" through school do not develop skills or the academic confidence needed to persevere through intellectual struggle.  They learn to settle for mediocrity because it is "safer" OR they choose to  become mental or physical dropouts. It's our job, as educators, to support them and to  lure them into the  realm of  interest-based learning, authentic questions, in-depth learning and creative problem solving.

We know it's the right thing to do.  Our mission statements proclaim that we will .  .  .   develop the potential of all learners   .  .  .   challenge all learners  .  .  .  create lifelong learners   .  .  . .    Will we?  

What do Iowa students and educators have to say about their needs for gifted programming?
  • "Mom, it isn't fair.  All the other kids get to learn new things every day and I don't," shared Iowa K student at the end of Week 1.  
  • "I guess I'm just supposed to be a 'reviewer,'" noted Iowa 3rd-grade student. 
  • "I have a dream . . . to have harder classes and fewer worksheets," shared a second grader in his Martin Luther King assignment. 
  • "My AP class is my 'dream class'!" one Iowa high school student shared.
  • "Being bored  in school was my own dirty little secret.  I couldn't talk about it because others didn't understand.  I'm bored with teaching right now and I plan to resign my position and go to law school."  Young Iowa Teacher
"Failure to help the gifted child reach his/her potential is a societal tragedy, the extent of which is difficult to measure, but surely great.  How can you measure the sonata unwritten, the curative drug undiscovered, the absence of political insight?  They are the difference between what we are and what we can be as a society."  Dr. James Gallagher

 

How Do We Know the Services to the Gifted Are Working?

 "Measure what you value and value what you measure."

 

When considering the continuous improvement cycle, thinking necessarily goes to program evaluation; and gifted and talented is one of the programs Iowa schools are required to evaluate. Chapter 59 of Iowa Code provides this guidance regarding program evaluation:

59.5(6) Evaluation. The school district shall give attention to the following in its evaluation design:
a. Evaluation of gifted and talented programs shall be for the purpose of measuring program effects and providing information for program improvement.
b. Evaluation should be conducted for each program level where objectives have been established.
c. Both cognitive and affective components of student development should be evaluated.
d. Evaluation findings should report results based on actual accomplishments by the gifted and talented students or their teachers which are a direct result of the project, program, or activity.

We need to know if the end result of our planning and implementation achieved the desired results (summative evaluation) as well as the improvements we can make and should be made along the way to increase the likelihood of success (formative evaluation). In "Developing a Plan for Evaluating a Program in Gifted Education" (Chapter 15 of Designing Services and Programs for High-Ability Learners), Carolyn Callahan defines program evaluation as "...a systematic process of collecting data from multiple sources to help decision makers at all levels make informed judgments about the effectiveness of the various components of services offered to gifted students.... Formative evaluation seeks to guide in the determination of the strengths and weaknesses of a program that contribute to the overall program effectiveness and factors that may hinder or contribute to the achievement of the program goals. Summative evaluation is designed to make judgments about the merit or worth of the program or specific components of a program...." (p. 196)

Gifted and talented program evaluation can take many forms but always begins with a well-framed question. One central Iowa district engages in ongoing formative program evaluation by asking such naturally emerging questions as
  • What seminar topics are of most benefit to our 9th and 10th graders?
  • Is there gender balance in our identified gifted population?
  • Are we identifying English language learners and minority students in the same proportion they are found in our total school population?
Another district asks, "Do we have adequate gifted and talented staff to deliver quality programming and services?" Their plan to answer the question includes completion of the "Self-Audit/Reflection Tool for Gifted and Talented Program Evaluation" (SA/RT) by teachers of gifted, collection of data from parents of gifted children using the Situation Appraisal (Tregoe) process, and online surveys completed by general education teachers and students. The data collected from these stakeholders are triangulated with recommendations taken to the district's Board of Education for consideration. The outcome has been the identification of desired program improvements and the decision to increase gifted and talented staff in order to implement those improvements.

Yet another district in suburban Minneapolis considered the following questions:
  • How should the task of program evaluation begin?  
  • What information should be collected?  
  • Are there standards for a good gifted program?  
  • Where should the effort be focused?  

Their progress over the course of a school year in answering those questions is documented in the National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented (NRC/GT) article "GIfted Program Evaluation in Progress." 


The  Arkansas Evaluation Initiative (AEI), the work of Drs. Ann Robinson and Alicia Cotabish funded by a Javits Grant from the United States Department of Education provides templates to structure a program evaluation around these questions:
1. To what extent are the stated mission and goals of the gifted program fulfilled in their actual operation?
2. To what extent is the gifted program meeting the needs of identified students as perceived by relevant groups?
3. What evidence exists to document positive student performance trends for students participating in the gifted program?
4. What are the program strengths and weaknesses in relation to the state of the art or best practices in gifted education?
5. What are the recommendations for program improvement or revision?

Another consideration for program evaluation is whether program goals and/or student outcomes have been met. Dr. James Borland (Teachers College, Columbia University) has developed a template for evaluating attainment of program goals. Those are available on the Iowa ASCD web site - gifted education.

Finally, a component of program evaluation alluded to in questions 2 and 3 above (AEI) is the determination of student attainment of Personalized Education Plan (PEP) goals. This could be a challenge in Iowa since PEPs are not mandated, and writing quality PEPs with measurable, attainable goals remains a challenge for most.

There has been an abundance of conversation and action recently around the idea of growth models in the world of No Child Left Behind. Most of these models are not geared toward the gifted, for measuring their growth using traditional grade-level assessments is not possible. The National Association for Gifted Children has published a position paper on growth models that can be useful to those designing program evaluation components around the question of whether gifted students are making growth.
Consider Joining ITAG - Iowa Talented and Gifted

Iowa Talented and Gifted (ITAG) is Iowa's association of interested parents, educators, and concerned citizens dedicated to meeting the needs of talented and gifted children and youth.  The president of ITAG is Linda Mohring.

The mission of the Iowa Talented and Gifted Association is to recognize, support, and respect the unique and diverse needs of talented and gifted learners through advocacy, education, and networking.Colored ITAG

Gather additional information at the ITAG web site.
Be Sure to Check Out Resources for Gifted Education on Iowa ASCD Website

Be sure to check out resources for the gifted on Iowa ASCD's website, with extended resources based on this edition!
A Special Thank You!

A special thank you to Mary Schmidt, Heartland AEA 11 consultant for gifted education and Past-President of ITAG, and Carma McLaren, Green Hills AEA consultant for gifted education and recipient of the ITAG Distinguished Service Award, for sharing their expertise and passion in this special edition of The Source.

Iowa ASCD is the source for developing instructional leadership. Serving more than 790 educators - teachers, principals, superintendents, directors of curriculum, technology specialists, college professors, AEA staff - Iowa ASCD strives to develop the collaborative capacity to impact the learning of each and every student in Iowa.

 

In This Issue
Who Are the Gifted?
What Do Gifted Children Need?
How Do We Identify the Gifted?
How Do We Serve the Gifted?
Why Serve the Gifted?
Is It Working?
Join ITAG
Resources for Gifted
Special Thank You

Quick Links:

 

Iowa ASCD  

 

Iowa ASCD Ning 

 

Iowa ASCD Twitter

 

Iowa ASCD Mission Statement

 

The source for developing instructional leadership

  

Iowa ASCD Contacts

 

President

Leslie Moore

 

President-Elect

Jason Ellingson   

 

Past President

Julie Davies

 

Membership Information

Bridget Arrasmith

 

Secretary

Marcia Tweeten 

 

Treasurer

 Julie Davies 

 

Members-at-Large

Julie Grotewold 

Bart Mason 

 Cindy Swanson 

Kevin Vidergar 

 

DE Liaison

Eric Neessen 

 

Higher Education

Jan Beatty-Westerman 

Elaine Smith-Bright 

 

Communications Editor

Tom Ahart 

 

Leadership Council (ASCD)

Pam Armstrong-Vogel 

Susan Pecinovsky 

 

Curriculum Leadership Academy

Sue Wood 

 

Fall Institute

Kelly Adams 

 

Summer Institutes

Julie Davies 

Cindy Swanson 

 

Technology

Chris Welch 

 

Membership Relations and E-Learning

Amy Wichman 

 

Executive Director

Lou Howell  

 

 

Des Moines Public Schools Offer Summer AP Institute 2012 

The Des Moines Public Schools is pleased to offer Advanced Placement and Pre-AP workshops for middle and high school teachers July 30 through August 2, 2012. Advanced Placement workshops offer middle and high school educators the information, tools, and strategies they need to build successful Advanced Placement Programs in their schools.  Through these workshops, teachers will strengthen their own professional skills and learn techniques to help students prepare for and connect with college.

Workshop sessions will be taught by College Board consultants and interested participants will have the opportunity to earn continuing education credit for an additional cost. All sessions will be held from 8:00 am to 3:00 pm daily at Roosevelt High School. Roosevelt High School is conveniently located off I-235 at 4419 Center Street in Des Moines.

The following AP workshops will be held July 30-August 2, 2012: Biology, English Language and Composition, English Literature and Composition, Environmental Science, Human Geography, Spanish Language, Statistics, and U.S. History. The cost for the four-day AP* workshops is $600.00 and includes course materials, snacks and lunch daily.

Pre-AP workshops are designed for the 6th to 10th grade teacher. Two-day workshops will be held for the following content areas: English, Mathematics, Science, Social Studies, and World Languages and Cultures. The cost for the two-day Pre-AP workshops is $300.00 and includes course materials, snacks and lunch daily.

Check out the registration information!  

*College Board, AP, Advanced Placement Program, Pre-AP are registered trademarks of the College Board. Used with permission.