Summer 2006 • Volume XXVI, Issue 3 TEMPO · 2015. 2. 19. · Summer 2006 • Tempo • Texas...

ReachingPotential

TEMPOTexas association for the Gifted and talented • Member, National Association for Gifted Children (NAGC)

Summer 2006 • Volume XXVI, Issue 3

2 Summer 2006 • Tempo • Texas Association for the Gifted and Talented

3Summer 2006 • Tempo • Texas Association for the Gifted and Talented

TEMPOSummer 2006 • Volume XXVI, Issue III

TEMPO EdITOrDr. Jennifer L. Jolly

PrESIdENTRaymond F. “Rick” Peters

PrESIdENT-ElECTDr. Keith Yost

FIrST VICE-PrESIdENTSheri Plybon

SECONd VICE-PrESIdENTPatti Staples

ThIrd VICE-PrESIdENTJoanna Baleson

SECrETAry/TrEASurErRobert Thompson

IMMEdIATE PAST-PrESIdENTBobbie Wedgeworth

EXECuTIVE dIrECTOrDianne Hughes

The Texas Association for the Gifted and Talented (TAGT) is a nonprofit organization of parents and professionals promoting appropriate education for gifted and talented students in the state of Texas.

TAGT Tempo is the official journal of the Texas Association for the Gifted and Talented. It is published four times a year in January, April, July, and October. The subscription is a benefit for TAGT members. Annual dues are $35–$55.

Material appearing in Tempo may be reprinted unless otherwise noted. When copying an article please cite Tempo and TAGT as the source. We appreciate copies of publications containing Tempo reprints.

TAGT does not sell its membership list to advertisers or other parties. However, membership names and addresses are made available for approved research requests. If you do not wish your name to be made available for G/T-related research, please write to TAGT at the address below.

Address correspondence concerning the Texas Association for the Gifted and Talented (including subscription questions) to TAGT, 406 East 11th Street, Suite 310, Austin, Texas, 78701-2617. Call TAGT at 512/ 499-8248, FAX 512/499-8264.

ADDRESS CORRECTION REQUESTED: Please notify TAGT if you are moving or if your mailing address has changed. TAGT publications are sent via third-class mail and are not forwarded by the Post Office. Be sure to renew your membership. You will not receive TAGT publications or mailings after your membership expiration date.

opinions expressed by individual authors do not necessarily

From the PresidentRaymond F. “Rick” Peters

Executive director’s updateDianne Hughes

From the EditorJennifer L. Jolly

Minority & low Income Students in Advanced Placement ProgramsDee Dosher

Pull-Out Programs for the Gifted and TalentedTerrie W. Turner

McKinney Independent Schooldistrict’s AlPhA ProgramJan Delisle

lessons from an Accidental TeacherJim Delisle

A learning Community ModelBrenda K. Flowers

New National Standards for Teachersof Gifted and Talented StudentsSusan K. Johnsen

Book reviews

5

7

8

9

12

16

20

24

26

32


CONTrIBuTING AuThOrSDee Dosher, M.A., is an assistant principal at University High School in Waco, TX. She is a graduate of Baylor University in Waco, TX. Before becoming an assistant principal, she taught high school English and served as an instructional facilitator.

Terrie Turner, M. Ed., is Coordinator of Gifted Services and GT facili-tator for Grades 3-8 for Dumas Independent School District in Dumas, Texas. She is a graduate of Texas Tech University with a B.A. in English and history and has taught both subjects at the middle school level. She received her Masters of Education in curriculum and instruction with an emphasis in gifted education from West Texas A & M University.

Jan DeLisle, M. A., Lead Gifted and Talented Specialist, has been with McKinneyISD for 6 years. Prior to this she was a doctoral student at the University of Illinois in Special Education with a concentration in Gifted Education. She is currently a doctoral student at the University of North Texas in Curriculum and Instruction with a concentration in Gifted Education and has served as one of their content experts for on-line GT courses. She holds a Masters degree in Liberal Arts from Southern Methodist University, a Bachelors of Science degree from the University of Connecticut and is a certified specialist and trainer in Kirton Cognitive Problem-Solving Theory from the Centre for Occupational Research, Hertfordshire, England.

Brenda Flowers, Ed.D., is currently the Director of Secondary Instructional Support for the Red Oak Independent School District, where she also serves as the District Coordinator for their Gifted and Talented program. In addition to her Doctorate in Educational Administration, Dr. Flowers holds Masters degrees in Educational Leadership and in Library Science, as well as a Bachelor’s degree in Mathematics.

Susan K. Johnsen, Ph.D., is a professor in the Department of Educational Psychology at Baylor University. She directs the Ph. D. Program and programs related to gifted and talented education. She is past-president of the Texas Association for Gifted and Talented. She has written over 100 articles, monographs, technical reports, and books related to gifted education. She is a frequent presenter at inter-national, national, and state conferences. She is editor of Gifted Child Today and serves on the editorial boards of Gifted Child Quarterly and Journal for Secondary Gifted Education. She is the author of Identifying Gifted Students: A Practical Guide; co-author of the Independent Study Program and three tests that are used in identifying gifted students: Test of Mathematical Abilities for Gifted Students (TOMAGS), Test of Nonverbal Intelligence (TONI-3), and Screening Assessment for Gifted Students (SAGES-2)

5

“Our Students, Our Future” is the theme of the upcoming

TAGT Conference in Austin. So many of you have dedi-

cated your talents to working with our gifted students and

our future will be brighter because of you. The story about

throwing a starfish into the sea touches all educators but

has special meaning to those who rise to the academic and

political challenges that sometimes interfere with the appro-

priate education of gifted and talented students. As a parent

who believes in appropriate public education, I applaud your

courage, sacrifice, and expertise.

Today many hope for a general awakening that would rec-

ognize the development of intellectual talent as an important

priority in our country, worthy of investment. Our economy

is reaping the benefits generated by investments made long

ago. Some of these investments in education and research

were in response to Sputnik, which shocked America into

action.

If we wait for another Sputnik-like event it may be too late

to recover. An October 2005, report to Congress Rising Above

the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America

for a Brighter Economic Future by the National Academies

compared our situation to that of a frog being slowly boiled

without realizing it. The report describes a cycle that begins

with the loss of sufficient home-grown innovators. With this

comes the outsourcing and loss of high paying quality jobs

to foreign nations. Such jobs fuel the U.S. economy and al-

low for a certain standard of living to be maintained. United

States’ national security, healthcare, and education would

be negatively impacted due to the lack of tax revenue from

jobs that have been loss to overseas competitors. We need to

encourage foresight and the courage to use it in our decision

makers or our future will suffer from short-term decisions.

I use engineering and science examples to illustrate our

competitive conundrum. Engineering and science are criti-

cal to our future, and awareness is building among our lead-

ers that we need to improve in these areas. The arts, critical

thinking, and decision-making skills must not be ignored so

that a holistic student is developed. The boundaries between

classical disciplines are disappearing as we seek to under-

stand the depth and complexity of our universe. Sounds like

gifted education, doesn’t it!

The Texas Education Agency’s Commissioner’s Advisory

Council for the Education of Gifted Students has a new mem-

ber, former U.S. Senator Bob Krueger. At our June meeting,

he quoted a monk who encouraged us to remember that we

are not the last generation. I thought that was profoundly

related to what educators and parents do every day.

“Our Students, Our Future” means that educators and

parents are shaping the future. We are preparing students

to think and learn so that they will become active partici-

pants in our free society, as well as effective (not minimally

competent) competitors in an increasingly global economy.

For every gifted student not developed, our future becomes

a little dimmer. If our broader society would only value the

development of intellectual talent in all socioeconomic

groups, much like athletic talent, we would be making a

strong investment in both our students and country. Broader

society will either reap the benefits of an investment in gifted

education or suffer the effects of losing its competitive status

in the 21st century.

from the presidentby RAYMOND F. “RICK” PETERS

Summer 2006 • Tempo • Texas Association for the Gifted and Talented

6


PresidentRaymond F. “Rick” Peters2104 Shady Brook Dr.Bedford, TX 76021817-283-3739 [email protected]

President-ElectDr. Keith Yost2670 Shady Acres LandingHouston, TX [email protected]

First Vice PresidentSheri Plybon2205 Parkhaven Dr.Plano, TX [email protected]

Second Vice PresidentPatti StaplesParis ISD.1920 Clarksville StreetParis, TX [email protected]

Third Vice PresidentJoanna BalesonC. P. I. Inc.P. O. Box 792 Seabrook, TX 77586281-474-7904 fax: [email protected]

Secretary/TreasurerRobert Thompson1020 Timber View Dr.Bedford, TX [email protected]

Immediate Past Presi-dent

Bobbie Wedgeworth4003 Sand TerraceKaty, TX [email protected]

Executive DirectorDianne Hughes406 East 11th Street, Suite 310Austin, TX 78701-2617512-499-8248 fax: [email protected]

I Patricia RendonRegion I ESC1900 West SchuniorEdinburg, TX 78541956-984-6237 fax: [email protected]

II Kathyron HumesBeeville ISD/A. C. Jones HS1902 N. AdamsBeeville, TX 78102361-362-6000 fax [email protected]

III Alexandra Schoenemann

Yoakum ISDP. O. Box 797Yoakum, TX 77995361-293-3001 fax: [email protected]

IV Dr. Laura Mackay2136 Lakewind LaneLeague City, TX [email protected]

V Ron SimsLumberton ISD121 South MainLumberton, TX 77657409-923-7507 fax: [email protected]

VI Linda WardMontgomery ISD/ Montgomery Inter. School1404 Woodhaven Dr.Montgomery, TX [email protected]

VII Joe StokesSabine ISD2801 Chandler St.Kilgore, TX 75662903-984-7347 fax: [email protected]

VIII Sandra StromParis ISD/Paris HS2400 Jefferson RdParis, TX 75460903-737-7400 fax: [email protected]

IX Missy MayfieldRegion IX ESC301 Loop 11Wichita Falls, TX [email protected]

X Ann StuddardAcker Special Program Center - Frisco ISD7159 HickoryFrisco, TX 75034469-633-6839 fax: [email protected]

XI Dr. Richard SinclairTX Academy of Math & ScienceP. O. Box 305309 UNTDenton, TX 76203-5309940-565-3971 fax: [email protected]

XII Dr. Janis FallKilleen ISD902 Rev. RA Abercrombie Dr.Killeen, TX 76543254-501-2625 fax: [email protected]

XIII Michelle SwainRound Rock ISD1311 Round Rock Ave.Round Rock, TX 78681512-464-5023 fax: [email protected]

XIV Dr. Cecelia BoswellP. O. Box 316De Leon, TX [email protected]

XV Debbie LopezSanta Rita Elem./San Angelo ISD615 South MadisonSan Angelo, TX 76901-4461325-859-3672 [email protected]

XVI Paula ColemanBorger ISD14 Adobe Creek TrailBorger, TX 79007806-274-2014 [email protected]

XVII Claire KingLubbock ISD7508 AlbanyLubbock, TX [email protected]

XVIII Lynn Lynch5510 AshwoodMidland, TX [email protected]

XIX Lynne DeLeonSocorro ISD3344 FreeportEl Paso, TX [email protected]

XX Jose Laguna7703 RohrdanzLive Oak, TX [email protected]

Editorial Board

Tempo Editor Dr. Jennifer L. Jolly (512) 499-8248 TAGT 406 East 11th St., Suite 310 Austin, TX 78701-2617 [email protected]

Editorial Board Members Karen Fitzgerald (713) 365-4820 Spring Branch ISD 10670 Hammerly Houston, TX 77043 [email protected] Tina Forester (936) 931-2182 Windswept Ranch, TWHBEA 13227 FM 362 Waller, TX 77484 [email protected]

Dr. Joyce E. Kyle Miller (972)613-7591 2600 Motley Drive Mesquite, Texas 75150 [email protected]

Dr. Gail Ryser 4906 Strass Dr. Austin, TX 78731 [email protected]

Dr. Mary Seay (830) 792-7266 Schreiner University 2100 Memorial Blvd. Kerrville, TX 78028 [email protected]

Terrie W. Turner (806) 935-4031 Dumas ISD PO Box 715 Dumas, TX 79029 [email protected]

texas association for the Gifted and talented2006 executive board

executive director’s updateby Dianne Hughes

Organizational Update

Recently, I attended a small confer-ence with other association executives where we focused our discussions on emerging trends that may impact the de-livery of member programs, how we com-municate with members, and how leader-ship will be enlisted for our organizations in the future. Underlying the anticipation of these trends is the recognition of gen-erational and environmental conditions that influence the needs of an association’s future members.

For instance, one of my required teacher preparation courses in college provided instruction on how to use a mimeograph machine, a 16 millimeter film projector, a filmstrip projector, and special printing tools for making posters. Although it was not the dark ages as my grandson might infer, it was before copi-ers, fax machines, personal computers, and cell phones. Our primary form of mass communication in schools and vol-unteer organizations was mimeographed newsletters, which was followed later by word processed and copied newsletters.

Today, we attend conferences and meetings in the midst of multi-tasking digital communication activity – upload, download, talk, text, photo and video – all with small hand held devices known as PDAs! Our challenge for the future as an association and as educators is how we will capture the minds and participation of the generation who cut their teeth on Gameboys and XBOXES. I fondly refer to them as the “Digitally Indigenous” but they are called the IM generation, which stands for “Instant Messaging Generation”.

While my generation engaged in dialogue and discourse using complete sentences, the younger, digitally-sophisti-cated generation speaks through text mes-saging that may be devoid of punctuation and complete words, much less sentences. They embrace the virtual reality of graphic action games that has eclipsed the world of literary images and personal mental imagi-nation. My observation is that the medium by which the message is delivered to young people frequently appears to be more im-portant than the message conveyed.

What are the implications for orga-nizations such as TAGT in 10 to 15 years? Will we be able to respond to the demands of the environment just as we have done in going from filmstrip projectors, to PowerPoint presentations, to webinars? Or will we be overwhelmed by the pace of change in the use of media and delivery of information? Although I have no answers, I do know that we “reality” based charac-ters are flexible and adaptable to change. I would appreciate hearing from you as to your thoughts on TAGT’s future and how we may connect with future leadership.

Remember the song, Lazy, Hazy, Crazy Days of Summer? So far, a few days have been hazy, but there is way too much activ-ity to be lazy and it looks like it is about to get crazy! Many changes are occurring at TAGT headquarters, which we hope will not inconvenience our members too much as we transition.

In May, the TAGT Executive Board approved a streamlined and simplified mis-sion that supports educators and parents who are able to meet the unique needs of gifted and talented students. The implica-

tion for TAGT is to be a key resource for providing the “tools” to enable our educa-tors and parents in meeting the unique needs of gifted students. Among the changes, is the re-development of the web-site using a fresh new logo that will help “brand” TAGT as THE statewide identity focused on the educational needs of Texas’ gifted students. Our goal is for the website to provide better resources and in-depth information as well as easier navigation. Again, your input and creative knowledge on how to make the website more valuable to you is important to us.

Concurrent with the website redesign will be a conversion from the old database management system to a new system. TAGT’s system for managing member information and program registration has needed updating for some time. Part of the change will include the ability for registrants to print out receipts for regis-tering online or for membership renewals. There also will be the addition of forums or list serves that should encourage member interaction on timely topics as well as re-source “tool-kits”. We hope to incorporate a student section over time. To help with all of the changes, a new team member, Jennifer Thompson, will be joining the staff in July as the Member Services and Database Manager. She will oversee the data conversion, manage the database and address membership information issues.


from the editorJennifer L. Jolly

This issue of TEMPO marks the first time in many years

that the journal has not had a theme. This decision was made in

order to encourage a broader range of authors and articles. The

articles included in this summer issue reflect the eclectic nature

of those that not only serve gifted and talented students but the

students themselves.

The spring issue of TEMPO focused on program design. Due

to the overwhelming response from program coordinators across

Texas, three additional articles focusing on program design are

included in this issue. These articles only reinforce the distinct

and unique ways that gifted and talented program coordinators

and school districts strive to serve their own population of gifted

and talented students while working within certain budgetary and

personnel parameters.

Looking ahead to November and the 29th Annual TAGT

Conference, Jim Delisle’s keynote is much anticipated. His article

Lessons from an Accidental Teacher provides a snippet of what

conference attendees can expect from his address. It also begs the

question, how many other educators have found gifted educa-

tion in a non-direct route? As a new teacher in Texas in the early

1990s, I was strongly encouraged to find an alternative teaching

field unless as a history teacher I was willing and/or able to coach.

Circumstances allowed me to accidentally enter gifted education,

a field that has become my life’s work.

Dee Dosher’s article turns our attention to Advanced

Placement (AP) programs’ critical role in turning around school

experiences for minority and low-income students. Many gifted

and talented students are served at the high school level through

AP courses. In some school districts, this is the sole service

provided for gifted high school students. These courses become

doubly important for those minority and low-income gifted and

talented students.

Finally, the new National Standards for Teachers of Gifted and

Talented Students, a joint project between the National Association

for Gifted Children (NAGC) and the Association for the Gifted

(TAG), offers for the first time a national set of comprehensive

standards for educators of the gifted and talented. It is hoped that

their inclusion in this issue will be used a resource which may guide

school districts in their hiring and evaluative processes of teachers

of the gifted and universities or alternative certificate programs in

gifted course work design.

Summer is in full swing and before we know it, school buildings

across Texas will open to begin a school year anew. Hopefully, we

have used the summer to rejuvenate and recharge our batteries in

order to welcome new and returning students with a vitality found

like no other throughout the year. I look forward to hearing from

the TEMPO readership about their “lessons learned” during the

2006-2007 school year!

Summer 2006 • Tempo • Texas Association for the Gifted and Talented8

9

Minority & Low-Income Students

in Advanced Placement Programs

By Dee DosherOver the past twenty years, the focus of

schools in the United States has altered significantly. The emphasis on high stakes testing has changed classroom instruc-tion and teachers spend much of their time planning and modifying for the spe-cial needs of their students. An alphabet soup of labels which includes ED, LD, GT, ADHD, LEP, and ESL, help to categorize and bring services to students with spe-cific educational needs. An additional challenge for teachers is the increased diversity in the student population. Texas is a prime example of this phenomenon, where 53.6% of citizens 18 and under are Hispanic or African American (Watt, Powell, & Mendiola, 2004).

As the face of America changes, so does the make-up of America’s schools, which

have for the most part failed to address cultural issues. Kettler, Shiu, and Johnsen (2006) note, “U.S. Mexican youth have the lowest aspirations for postsecondary education” (p. 39). In fact, Solórzano and Ornelas (2002) found that a mere six out of 100 Chicano students will receive a bachelor’s degree. In addition, Hispanics make up 37% of high school dropouts, and are only 6.1% of college graduates (Watt, Powell, & Mendiola, 2004). Parents of these children may be immigrants or English language learners themselves, who are intimidated or do not know how to access the school system. For this reason, minority students’ peer groups and other support systems, such as, teachers and ad-ministrators, are vital to their success at school. Hispanic students long for a sense of community and create peer groups

from within their own ethnic group. Unfortunately, Hispanic and African American students “tend to pick friends that earn lower grades, spend less time on schoolwork, and have substantially lower performance standards” (Kettler, Shiu, & Johnsen, p. 40). Therefore, schools must provide ways for these students to become involved in peer groups that are focused on higher education (Kettler, Shiu, & Johnsen).

One avenue for this is the Advanced Placement (AP) Program. The AP program begun in 1955, gives students opportunities for “college-level coursework and earning college credit while still in high school” (Geiser & Santelices, 2004, p. 2). College Board (2002) adds that the program im-proves students’ confidence and their abil-ity to succeed by exposing young people to high academic standards through col-



lege-level classes. The College Board sets the standards and guidelines for the AP program, which includes 35 courses in 19 subject areas. “The College Board is com-mitted to the principle that all students deserve an opportunity to participate in rigorous and academically challenging courses and programs. All students who are willing to accept the challenge of a rigorous academic curriculum should be given consideration for admission to AP courses” (Sandy, 2002, p. 5).

Teachers must not only encourage stu-dents to take AP courses but also the cul-minating AP exam (Sandy, 2004). The AP exams fee is $78 per test, but most states are committed to subsidizing the fees for students qualifying for free and reduced lunch. For example, many students in Texas only pay $5 or the school district may decide to pay the entire testing fee.

Students benefit greatly from taking the AP exam. The most obvious benefit is col-lege credit obtained for certain AP exam scores. If a student scores a three or higher on an AP test, he or she can receive credit for various courses depending on the class and criteria set forth by each univer-sity (Klopfenstein, 2003). The Advanced Placement program allows students to be more prepared for college and helps in the admission process. “Especially for leading public universities, emphasis on AP and honors as admissions criteria can set ‘de facto’ standards for public schools in their states, creating pressure on the schools to upgrade curricula and instruc-tion” (Geiser & Santelices, 2004, p. 3). Actually, a student can take an AP exam without participating in the correspond-ing course. However, taking AP courses allows students to demonstrate to col-leges that they are prepared for the rigor of college classes (Geiser & Santelices). AP courses also can be used as assurance that students received high quality instruction in those particular classes. Klopfenstein found that college admissions officers look for AP experience in applicants in order to determine future success at the university level, so those students who participate in the AP program have an advantage over other college applicants.

Since students from low-wealth schools “typically have less access to AP courses than those from schools with higher col-lege-going rates, emphasis on AP course-work as a selection factor can adversely affect their chances of college admission” (Geiser & Santelices, 2004, p. 4). In addi-tion, many of these low-income minority students are tracked into classes which are not for college-bound students. Therefore, these students are not enrolled in the pro-grams at the rate they should be entering

them (Geiser & Santelices). Several stud-ies illustrate the disparities in the number of minorities participating in the AP pro-gram. According to College Board (2002), the ethnic breakdown of students in AP classes does not mirror the ethnic make-up of students in the United States where African American and Hispanic students form about 15% of their age groups each, but represent only 5% of the students taking AP courses. Even though 41.7% of Texas students are Hispanic, only 23.6% took AP courses. Underrepresentation is even more evident for African American students. While African American stu-dents represent 14.4% of all students in Texas, they only comprise 4.5% of AP stu-dents (Watt, Powell, & Mendiola, 2004). These numbers point to a serious discrep-ancy. Texas schools have not kept up with changing student demographics.

Although one’s minority status does seem to affect his or her performance in the AP program, the most important fac-tor influencing participation in AP is low income. In fact, “low income diminishes the AP participation of students from all races, but black and Hispanic students are three times more likely to be low income as white students” (Klopfenstein, 2003, p. 25). Three-fourths of all African American and Hispanic students come from low income families, and low income reduces AP participation rates by almost 40% (Klopfenstein). If these students partici-pate in the AP program, they will be privy to an academic culture that many have never been exposed. Students who decide to take upper-level courses in high school are also more likely to attend and graduate from college even if their parents did not attend college. Students in AP programs are twice as likely to go to graduate from high school, pursue a double major, and choose more challenging majors (Kettler, Shiu, & Johnsen, 2006).

Education in the U.S. is primarily funded through state and local taxes, districts throughout the country differ in the amount of focus placed on programs such as Advanced Placement. Adelman (1999) found that the curriculum taught at a high school is 41% of the academic background that students will bring with them to college. This impact is even more pronounced for African American and Hispanic students. However, minority students are more likely than White stu-dents to attend schools that operate on small budgets, employ poorly-trained teachers, function with an inadequate counseling staff, and have discipline prob-lems. In addition, these students also must overcome barriers such as being the first in their family to go to college and grow-

ing up in a non-English speaking family (College Board, 2002). High schools can assist these students in breaking out of the circle of poverty and lack of education by offering higher level classes to all stu-dents. Klopfenstein (2003) discovered that if high schools offer a wide variety of AP courses, students from all racial groups will have more choices and the probabil-ity for more minorities to be successful in programs such as AP will increase greatly. “Explanations for the continued lag of black and Hispanic students during a pe-riod of overall growth in [AP] participa-tion remain largely speculative and focus on inferior resources at predominately minority schools or low expectations and early tracking for minority students” (Klopfenstein, p. 3). Solórzano and Ornelas (2002) concurred by stating that Chicana/Latina students suffer from inequalities due to a “lack of enriched curriculum in K-12 schools, tracking of students into re-medial instruction, segregation, and lower financed schools” (p. 218).

Motivated teachers who are highly trained, tutorials after school hours, and summer enrichment activities are en-dorsed by the College Board as ways to assist students who may need extra help with the more challenging AP curriculum (Sandy, 2004). Finding highly qualified, highly trained, and motivated teach-ers may just be the most difficult task in creating an effective AP program. While describing the many benefits of an AP program for a school, Sandy explained that AP-trained teachers tend to improve the overall quality of work for all stu-dents, not just students in the program. However, as the AP program continues to grow, finding highly qualified and trained teachers becomes more difficult. Studies have found that low-income communities have more unqualified or under qualified teachers than middle- and upper-income communities (College Board, 2002). In addition, there is a large discrepancy in the number of minority teachers. For example 35% of the student population was African American, but only 11% of AP teachers were African American. The College Board urges, “When schools don’t have minority teachers at the advanced class level, minority students don’t see a place for themselves in those classes. If there are teachers of color teaching AP, some students may think, ‘Maybe I have a chance’” (Sandy, 2004, p. 20). If those minority teachers are not given the oppor-tunity to teach AP classes, students may begin to believe that minority teachers are not qualified to teach such classes.

Teachers of minority students may find themselves playing the parental sup-


port role when it comes to mentoring and providing information about col-lege. Minority teachers can be especially important in the mentoring process, because their classroom environment maybe more comfortable to the students (Klopfenstein, 2003). The College Board stresses, “Educators must work to dispel prevailing perceptions about minority students and instead set high expecta-tions for all students” (Sandy, 2004, p. 10). Teacher interviews found that good teach-ers of minority students are good teachers (College Board, 2002). The overall theme from the teachers was that effective teach-ing for minority students is identical to effective teaching for all students. These teachers said that high standards for all students should be the norm; that rules and guidelines are applied consistently, disregarding excuses about poverty or lack of knowledge; and that high expec-tations are expected of themselves and of the students and are clearly commu-nicated. However, highly motivated and effective teachers are not the only answer. “It is almost impossible for a teacher to undo 17 years of low expectations [about going to college] unless the student has a reason to outdo her/his parents” (College Board, p. 28).

In 1999, Texas schools began imple-menting Advancement via Individual Determination (AVID), a program de-veloped in San Diego County, California, with the purpose of preparing academi-cally average students for higher educa-tion, a group historically underrepre-sented in colleges and universities. The AVID model consists of a rigorous and relevant curriculum, an elective class that serves as a support in both academic and social areas, and college students who tutor on a regular basis (Watt, Powell, & Mendiola, 2004). The typical AVID student is of low socioeconomic status, does “C” work, maintains average to high achievement test scores, wants to go to college, is ethnically and linguistically diverse, and has “untapped academic potential.” In San Diego County, AVID has been shown to “effectively wipe out the correlation between family income and college admission”(Watt, Powell, & Mendiola, p. 245). AVID participants en-rolled in four-year colleges and universi-ties at a rate of 93%. Texas is experiencing this same trend, where the majority of AVID students are Hispanic and African American. A recent study of the AVID program in Texas showed that it was a vital part of schoolwide reform when implemented correctly. In 2001-2002, over 75% of the AVID students in Texas were classified as low SES, and more than

70% of their parents reported either a high school education or less (Watt, Powell, & Mendiola).

According to reported performance indicators, AVID student performance has influenced schoolwide performance, a phenomenon known as “The AVID Effect.” This term refers to the positive effect the program has on improving per-formance of AVID and Non-AVID stu-dents as well. In Texas, the AVID Effect is tied to AP course enrollment (AVID, n.d.). “Opening access to AP courses for all stu-dents, regardless of ethnicity or economic background is essential to leveling the academic playing field. AVID students, who take many AP tests every year, show greater ethnic diversity that AP test-tak-ers do overall. The proportion of Latinos taking AP exams is over five times higher among AVID students than among U.S. students overall” (AVID, p. 4).

The Advanced Placement program is a successful program that has benefited students throughout the United States by increasing the number of academi-cally challenging courses offered in high schools. Students who participate in AP can save thousands of dollars in college tuition by receiving college credit for scoring a three, four, or five on varying AP exams. However, with successful pro-grams there are challenges.

Klopfenstein (2003) pointed out sev-eral ways schools can improve their AP program. First, large schools can imple-ment “schools-within-a-school” models that help create small, nurturing environ-ments within the large, diverse school community. Next, schools could hire AP teachers who could serve as role models and mentors for minority AP students. Also, administrators can provide support, incentives, and training for teachers so that they can help minority students set realistic academic goals, prepare for col-lege level work, and navigate the college admissions process. Finally, schools can solicit business and community leaders for help with funding programs that sup-port the AP program. Programs like AVID can enhance a school’s AP program. All of this must be done while meeting state and federal standards. Hopefully, schools will see the value of a strong Advanced Placement program and implement as many supporting components as neces-sary so that all students have the oppor-tunity to be successful in high school and move on to a productive college career as well regardless of race, ethnicity, or socio-economic level.

ReferencesAdelman, C. (1999). Answers in the tool

box: Academic intensity, attendance patterns, and bachelor’s degree at-tainment. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

AVID. (n.d.). Number crunching. Retrieved March 6, 2006, from http://avidonline.org

College Board. (2002). Minority stu-dent success: The role of teachers in Advanced Placement program (AP) courses. (College Board Research Report No. 2002-8 ETSRR-02-17). New York: College Entrance Examination Board.

Geiser, S., & Santelices, V. (2004). The role of Advanced Placement and honors courses in college admissions. (Research and Occasional Paper Series: CSHE.4.04). Berkeley, CA: University of California, Berkeley, Center for Studies in Higher Education.

Kettler, T., Shiu, A., & Johnsen, S.K. (2006). AP as an intervention for middle school Hispanic students. Gifted Child Today, 29(1), 39-46.

Klopfenstein, K. (2003). Advanced Placement: Do minorities have equal opportunity? Fort Worth, TX: Texas Christian University, Department of Economics.

Sandy, R. (2004). 2004 National Advanced Placement program equity colloquium. Retrieved March 13, 2006 from http://apcentral.collegeboard.com

Solórzano, D. G., & Ornelas, A. (2002). A critical race analysis of Avanced Placement classes: A case of educa-tional inequality. Journal of Latinos and Education, 1, 215-229.

Watt, K. M., Powell, C.A., & Mendiola, I. D. (2004). Implications of one com-prehensive school reform model for secondary school students underrepre-sented in higher education. Journal of Education for Students Placed At Risk, 9, 241-259.


for the Gifted and TalentedBy Terrie W. Turner

Pull-OutPrograms

13

Borland (1989) defines a pull-out program for gifted as an approach to programming whereby “…gifted students spend most of their time in a regular heterogeneous classroom, but they are removed or pulled out for a given period of time each week for special instruction with other gifted students…”(p. 135 ). As Borland further states, pull-out programs can “…involve the transporting of students to a central location…” or can “…have sites within each building” (p. 135). Instruction in such programs is normally the respon-sibility of specially trained teachers who deliver a curriculum differentiated spe-cifically for gifted students. According to Borland, there are both disadvantages and advantages to pull-out programs.

Disadvantages• Create logistical nightmares in trans-

portation and scheduling.

• Are inordinately demanding on pull-out teachers in terms of curriculum development that is meaningful and yet does not “infringe” upon the regu-lar core curriculum.

• Pose a challenge in terms of coordi-nating with and receiving cooperation of the regular classroom teachers.

• Make gifted students very conspicu-ous and singled-out.

• Are viewed as something “extra” not as an integral part of an educational plan.

• Are an expensive solution to the need for services for gifted students (Borland, 1989).

There are numerous disadvantages to a pull-out program/resource room as an op-tion for gifted services. First and foremost, a few hours a week is a woefully small amount of time for students to be served. As it is frequently heard, “A child is not gifted only three hours a week.” While the Texas State Plan for the Education of the Gifted and Talented does not specify the amount of time that a gifted and talented students must be served, some states do. One state deems five hours to be the required—the minimum, to be sure, but still the required— time a gifted student should be served. Secondly, when time is so limited, and often so infrequent, there is great difficulty insuring real depth and continuity in what is studied. GT pull-out

content runs the risk of becoming super-ficial and skirting the category of “dog and pony show” rather than that of curricu-lar depth and complexity. There is a real temptation to have quick, “cute,” one-shot activities instead of providing real learning for gifted students. Borland states, “…there is a danger…that special curricula in pull-out programs will consist of little more than trivia” (Borland, 1989, p. 137). Third, the stigma of being “pulled out” to go to a special class sometimes intimidates and discourages students. Whether the student is the only one in his class to be pulled-out or whether she just doesn’t want to miss anything she is expected to do or know in the regular classroom, this can be a real problem for some students. Leaving the classroom can dissuade participation, especially for those preadolescents and adolescents concerned with peer accep-tance as well as those whose culture does not esteem or encourage individuality. In addition, some students consider the pull-out an “interruption” and find it hard to “switch gears” (Ruf, 2005, p. 276).

Advantage• “…allows for both homogeneous

grouping of gifted students…and for heterogeneous grouping…” (Borland, 1989, p. 135),

• is familiar to both teachers and stu-dents because it is used for a large variety of other special programs such as speech therapy, special education, band, and choir,

• provides for a differentiated curricu-lum for gifted students,

• is a flexible format that can be adapted to a variety of groupings both in respect to grade level and physical facilities, thus is applicable in school districts of all sizes, geography, re-sources, and demographics, and

• allows for a smaller and more homoge-neous group remaining in the regular classroom, thus freeing the teacher to give more attention to students who might need special help (Borland).

Although time may be limited, at least there is time specifically allocated for serving gifted students and considering their unique abilities, learning styles, and personality characteristics. For many stu-dents, it is a time which they look forward

to intellectual challenge, individualized instruction, and stimulating peer rela-tionships. In Dumas ISD, the Plan for Educationally Gifted Students (PEGS) serves its gifted and talented students through a pull-out program. On more than one occasion, a student declared, “Finally!! I thought PEGS would never get here this week!” When asked why they are glad it’s PEGS day, they have many answers—“Kids here like me.” “We do hard stuff!” “It’s not boring!” “We get to talk about things.” “We learn new stuff—not just go over old stuff we already know.” Many times students have begun packing up their backpacks to leave, declaring as they do so, “It’s over already?!” or “I wish we could have PEGS all the time!” Yes, though students are not gifted just three hours a week, having even that small amount of time a week when their giftedness is acknowledged, addressed, and accommodated can be a decided blessing or even a virtual lifeline.

In addition, though there is a tempta-tion to conduct “one shot wonder” lessons that are more trivial than substantive, there is also the opportunity to lead stu-dents to become independent, life-long learners who take responsibility for their own intellectual growth. With consistent, teacher-monitored learning activities, reinforced by classroom accountability and high expectations, students begin to stretch themselves beyond the normal requirements and expectations of routine drill and standardized thinking. Students begin to learn to direct their own time, choosing what to focus on and how to use the allotted time to accomplish the required tasks. In addition, students have the opportunity to choose what they will study individually through independent studies, which reinforces that they are in charge of what they learn.

Students also experience an atmosphere where divergent thinking is not only ac-cepted but indeed is encouraged and expected. There might be many “correct” answers to the question as long as the conclusion can be justified or supported. Incorporated into class time are numerous activities and opportunities for creative expression and divergent thoughts.

Student GrowthAs new students enter PEGS, it is

amazing what students are not able to do.

There is an obvious difference between “veterans” and “rookies” in the program. New students are fairly baffled by and un-able to structure a choice about the use of their time. All pull-out classes have a component of “individual work time” dur-ing which students choose for themselves what they need to work on and for how long. Usually it takes several weeks if not longer for new students to feel comfort-able directing their own work. The main classroom rule is “Stay on task at all times, and do not keep anyone else from being on task,” there is a great deal of freedom given to the individual student. For those students dependent on teacher direction, this can be a real challenge. However, as they become more comfortable and able to decide “what and when” in regard to classroom activities and at times endure the consequences of poor choices, they learn to take responsibility for their own learning and results. They learn that their success depends upon their choices, that satisfying their desire to know is under their control, and that they need not be at the mercy of others or a “prisoner” of circumstances in their intellectual devel-opment.

When given the opportunity to come up with new, creative ideas of their own, many new students are unable to allow themselves to go beyond what they think might be the “correct” answer. A display of such striving for the “acceptable” answer always shows itself when brainstorm-ing as a “warm-up” activity. Many times, even when the brainstorming topic is a relatively simple one such as “Think of things that are sticky,” a new student will exhibit—again—an almost baffled and certainly inhibited reaction to the assign-ment. It is almost as if they cannot give themselves permission to have their own “free-wheeling” thoughts, but can strive only to determine what is the expected, acceptable, “right” answer.

What can students do after being in Dumas ISD pull-out programs during their elementary years? They can solve complex deductive thinking and logic problems and consider difficult ques-tions and think critically, defending their conclusions with reasoned supporting information. They can find up-to-date, relevant information and decide how to use that information to create something

new and useful to others. They can stand in front of an audience and give a cogent, thoughtful, enlightening presentation with self-confidence and poise. They can allow themselves to consider divergent points of view and entertain “off-the-wall” solutions to real problems.

A by-product of the pull-out program is the positive impact on students’ affective needs. Yes, in leaving the regular class-room to go to a pull-out class students are “singled out” and made conspicuous; yet many of them are already singled out and conspicuous by their very nature. But in the pull-out classroom they feel accepted and valued. They are among other stu-dents who are “like them” and that gives them a freedom to be more of who they really are than many other places in their daily lives give them. Whitney points out that “Some students who are silent in their regular classroom become talkative in the gifted resource room, sometimes overly so, because it is a place where they feel safe from ridicule and understood by both the teacher and the other students” (2000, p. 87). In having a place where they experi-ence freedom of choice in their learning and in their expressions of that learning, they feel a control and a challenge that often they are not experiencing anywhere else. By being put into such a situation of acceptance, freedom, challenge, and posi-tive peer pressure, many times their moti-vation, self-confidence and self-esteem, as well as their achievement, can reach new levels.

Necessary Program Elements What, then, are the elements that com-

prise a successful pull-out program? First there must be a good working relationship between the program personnel and other district personnel. Positive attitudes and support from regular education teachers are vital to the health of the program and the classroom “health” of the gifted stu-dents. Collaborative, supportive relation-ships can be fostered in a number of ways. Chief among these is good communication between the teacher of the gifted program and the regular classroom teacher. Careful attention by both parties to two-way com-munication helps avoid schedule conflicts which can cause troublesome changes in plans as well as difficult choices having to be made by students. Even more im-



portant, a deeper understanding of the educational and affective needs of each student can be shared if open and fre-quent communication is encouraged and realized. An additional way of fostering good relationships with regular education personnel is to provide support and prac-tical help to the regular classroom teacher in meeting the needs of the gifted students in her classroom. Insights into the person-ality and nature of gifted students can be very helpful in dealing with classroom is-sues such as discipline and underachieve-ment. Many strategies can also be used in curriculum modifications for all levels of students and thus would be helpful to the teacher in general. Winebrenner writes, “Help them locate and use appropriate extension materials. You want them to see you as a resource, not as a threat to their ability to challenge their most capable students. Do whatever you can to make this happen” (2001, p. 195). Building a col-laborative relationship based on mutual respect of each other’s role in a student’s education can only benefit both parties as well as our students.

Other important relationships which must be cultivated are those with district administrative personnel. It is imperative that principals involved in pull-out pro-grams recognize the role and importance of this service to their gifted population. Vital importance to a pull-out program, the department of transportation must be a supportive, collaborating partner for implementation and success.

Lastly, the parents of gifted students must be partners in the collaborative effort to meet student needs as well. By keeping parents informed about program placement, structure, expectations, and opportunities, teachers can help ensure that parents are supportive advocates for their students and the program itself. Regular communication and reports as well as supportive involvement with the parent advocacy/support group can help to build this relationship.

Academic Rigor Any special program which uses

district resources must be worthwhile in meeting the needs of its students. By the very definition of giftedness, an inte-gral part of a pull-out program must be opportunities which provide academic rigor and challenging experiences. A

thoughtfully constructed scope and se-quence which guides the curriculum of the program should include higher level thinking, critical thinking, and advanced, sophisticated learning opportunities. This academic rigor must be partnered with a differentiated curriculum which addresses the learning needs of gifted students and provides as much individualization of learning as possible.

Steps to SuccessWinebrenner identifies the following el-

ements of a successful pull-out program:• Identify the areas of need for chal-

lenge for the students in your district or your class and plan for meeting that need;

• Schedule one long block of time to work with students rather than sev-eral short pieces of time;

• Plan a curriculum with a balanced va-riety of activities. Among these might be independent study, academic con-tests, higher order thinking skills, cre-ativity, and affective needs activities. Spending no less than 15-20 minutes each meeting time discussing and working with students on such issues as the right to struggle for learning and facing challenges, risk-taking, learning through mistakes, and ac-ceptance of self and others; and

• Coach/train regular education teach-ers in understanding gifted and in classroom strategies (2001).

ConclusionA pullout program is not necessarily

the very best option for gifted services for every district. “The best” option depends upon the unique character and needs of each district. However, it is definitely has many advantages when structured around student needs. Smutny states that the degree to which the pull-out program ”…involved advanced thinking and acceler-ated learning (rather than just a series of stimulating activities any child do or enjoy) determines the success or failure of the program” (2003, p.61). Research indicates pull-out programs to have several positive effects . Rogers states,“Gains in critical and creative thinking also were found when those skills were emphasized…Gifted stu-dents engaged in the pull-out program also showed slight positive gains in self-esteem”

(2002, p. 221). Likewise, Davis and Rimm contend that “…these programs typically have a positive effect on achievement, cre-ativity, and thinking skills” (1998, p. 142). In addition to scientific research, perhaps the further evidence that the pull-out program can be a vital and effective service delivery model can best be expressed by the stu-dents themselves. Evidenced by the student who comes in saying, “Finally! PEGS day is here!” Whitney recounts one young student saying, “ Being in this class makes it pos-sible for me to get through the rest of my week. It helps me so much to spend time with other kids who are like me” (2002, p. 87). What more needs to be said?

ReferencesBorland, J. H. (1989). Planning and imple-

menting programs for the gifted. New York: Teachers College Press.

Davis, G. A., & Rimm, S. (1998). Education of the gifted and talented (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Rogers, K. (2002). Reforming gifted edu-cation. Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press.

Ruf, D. L. (2005). Losing our minds: Gifted children left behind. Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press.

Smutny, J. (2003). Gifted education: Promising practices. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa Press.

Texas State Plan for the Gifted and Talented. (1996). Austin,TX: Texas Education Agency.

Whitney, C. S. (2000). Helping gifted children soar. Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press.

Winebrenner, S. (2001). Teaching gifted kids in the regular class-room. Minneapolis, MN: Free Spirit Publishing.


McKinney Independent School District’s

By Jan Delisle McKinney, Texas, located 30 miles north of

Dallas, maintains a small town atmosphere despite the fact that it is one of the fastest growing cities of its size in the United States. With a popula-tion of a little over 100,000, approximately 71% of McKinney’s residents have college degrees or are currently attending college and the average esti-mated household income is $94,000. This commu-nity profile presents unique challenges to the school district. Approximately 18,000 students are enrolled in the McKinney Independent School District with an ethnic breakdown of 66.3% Caucasian, 21.3% Hispanic, 9.6% African American, 2.3% Asian/Pacific Islander, and 0.5% Native American. Of these students approximately 6.5% are identified as gifted and talented (GT) and participate in ALPHA. At present, there are 17 elementary schools, four middle schools, and two high schools, with a third high school opening in the fall of 2006. The ALPHA program has a presence in all schools throughout the district. The ALPHA program is designed to promote the exploration and development of giftedness in all core content areas in elementary school and to offer secondary students a variety of choices in which to participate based on students’ particular areas of giftedness.

Gifted students view the world in nontraditional ways. Therefore, they require curriculum differ-entiation, which modifies learning experiences to address their complex and unusual learning styles. McKinney ISD’s gifted population is culturally di-verse and represents the socio-economic environ-ment. Some of our students have learning disabili-ties, behavior problems, or physical handicaps. The selection process takes this diversity into account and uses a variety of criteria for placement, includ-ing non-verbal assessment and student products. During 2006-2007 school year, McKinney I.S.D. established district committees, at the elementary and secondary levels, to review students for place-ment in the ALPHA program. This decision has

ALPHA Program

Summer 2006 • Tempo • Texas Association for the Gifted and Talented 17


helped ensure that teachers, counselors, and administrators are highly trained in best practices for gifted education placement. Over the past five years, the gifted population profile has begun to more closely mirror the district popula-tion. Continual evaluation of assessments and placement practices takes place so the gifted population reflects that of the district’s sub-populations.

ALPHA Program Design

Elementary School (K-5)District-wide early primary curriculum

is designed to promote higher order and critical thinking skills with an emphasis on creativity. First and second graders meet with the ALPHA teacher for differ-entiated and extension activities approxi-mately one hour once a week. All M.I.S.D. Kindergarten students are screened for the ALPHA program in the spring semes-ter and identified students begin meeting with the ALPHA teacher in March in compliance with the Texas State Plan for Gifted Education.

Third grade students meet with the ALPHA teacher for approximately half a day once a week for extension activities designed to promote creativity and help students tran-sition into the more rigorous curriculum of the fourth grade ALPHA class.

The upper elementary program is de-signed to extend the regular classroom learning by integrating core subjects into multiple projects that have real-world ap-plication. Fourth and fifth grade students, who are clustered in the regular class-room with GT endorsed teachers, meet on separate days and spend an entire day once a week in the ALPHA classroom - taught by a GT endorsed teacher - with other identified students at their grade level. ALPHA activities incorporate the overarching content themes for each nine week period, integrate the four core subjects in challenging curriculum that stimulates creativity, and allow the gifted student to work individually and in group settings. State and national competitions are included as an integral part of the program.

The bilingual ALPHA program, K-5, includes the same components as the monolingual ALPHA classes and seeks op-portunities for additional competitions for second language learners. Gifted English

speaking and bilingual students thrive in this ALPHA environment that celebrates divergent creativity and an increased ex-pectation for student performance.

Middle School (6-8 grades)Students may choose ALPHA classes

in language arts, science, or math or any combination of these three courses. ALPHA classes in social studies are being developed and will be offered in the fu-ture. Because of the rigor in these courses, it is not recommended that students be scheduled in all three areas. Parents are encouraged to ask the elementary ALPHA teacher which course(s) may be most ap-propriate for their children. Students select the ALPHA course in the area in which they demonstrate the greatest strengths and where his or her interests lie. For most students, one or two courses will provide sufficient challenge; for others, additional projects will have to be designed or com-petitions found in addition to the three ALPHA classes.

Students in ALPHA Language Arts study literature from a historical per-spective. The curriculum is based on the Integrated Curriculum Model (developed by the Center for Gifted Education at the College of William and Mary) that em-phasizes advanced content knowledge, encourages higher order thinking and processing, and focuses on issues, themes, and ideas related to real-world concepts. An in-depth study of grammar and clas-sical (Greek & Latin) root words are an integral part of our language arts curricu-lum. Eighth grade students participate in the Collin County Bar Association Mock Trial, a trial simulation and competition that requires “on your feet” critical think-ing skills.

Students selecting ALPHA Science are introduced to problem-based learning ex-periences and are encouraged to partici-pate in Science Fair. Working within the class period, sixth grade students select a science project and are introduced to all the steps required for project completion. Seventh grade students participate in the MISD Science Olympiad - an activity de-signed to stimulate and expand students’ interests in all areas of science.

ALPHA Math is a compacted and accel-erated program, with students completing Algebra 1 in seventh grade and Geometry in eighth grade. A math competition class,

including MathCounts, is offered as an elective in our middle schools and many of the gifted math students enroll in this class as well.

High School (9-12 grades)A total of 26 Advanced Placement (AP)

courses in the areas of math, science, his-tory, language arts, foreign languages, computer technology, and art are available for all students. McKinney ISD pays for the AP examination fee for all students enrolled in these courses. However, the needs of gifted students are not met just by the enrollment in an AP class. ALPHA students are clustered in designated classes so that GT certified teachers can continue to foster the gifted student. Teachers use flexible grouping for instruction, give choices in assignments and products, and establish a student-centered classroom.

Humanities classes, which incorpo-rate philosophy and the arts, are offered for ALPHA students in grades 9-12. Humanities I (ninth) is double-blocked and includes the content of Pre-AP English I and Pre-AP World Geography/Human Cultures. Humanities II, also double-blocked, combines Pre-AP English II and AP World History content. Students are expected to take the AP World History exam at the end of the year. Humanities I and II teachers co-plan and design proj-ects that incorporate both content areas. Humanities III and IV are single-blocked and complete the graduation requirements of English III and IV. Students take the AP English Language and Composition exam in 11th grade and AP Literature and Composition in 12th grade.

An integral part of all the Humanities classes is the Field of Expertise Project (F.O.E.). F.O.E. projects allow the gifted student to explore in depth an area of individual interest that is covered in the course content. The student may work individually or in a group on this project, some notable topics include scientific and technological advances, diet and nutrition, the culture of theater, and changes and impact of music. Typically, students will choose a topic which they will study for the entire school year. Students are intro-duced to F.O.E. in ninth grade, completing one project for the year. The number of projects increases to two in 10th grade and one project each quarter is expected for 11th and 12th grade. F.O.E. presenta-


tions are a time for celebration of gifted qualities for the Humanities teachers. As students individually or in groups come together to share their passions, the “true face” of giftedness is abundantly evident. Administrators and parents are invited to attend. One gifted student wrote his col-lege essay on the importance of his F.O.E. projects, calling them “the single most important activity” he did in high school. Because the GT Standards Project rubrics for product, process, and communication are used for assessment, students are stretched for professional quality.

Another facet of the Humanities III class is Author Canon. Each student selects an author and reads a substantial portion, if not all, of his or her published works. One class at McKinney High School proposed and organized an Author Canon dinner in which each student attended in the per-sona of their selected author, remaining “in character” for the event.

An Independent Study/Mentorship class is offered to 11th and 12th grade ALPHA students (10th grade with ap-

proval of the ALPHA teacher and Lead GT Specialist). The class offers GT stu-dents an opportunity to explore fields of study outside the offered courses in high school. Additionally, independent study is offered in the core content areas. All independent studies are considered a part of the State GT Standards Project and use the established rubrics for process, communications, and project outcome or product.

McKinney ISD has been fortunate to develop a relationship with Austin College and the Posey Leadership Institute. Ninth grade ALPHA students interested in leadership are invited to participate in an all-day retreat at Austin College that focuses on the study of interpersonal and intrapersonal awareness. Opportunities for students to continue the study of leadership through high school under the direction of Leadership Institute students are being developed.

Additional programs that engage the gifted learner include Academic Decathlon, courses in Broadcast Journalism, Criminal

Justice, multiple foreign languages (Spanish, French, German and Latin), Cisco Networking certifications, Health Science Technology certifications, Virtual High School, and dual-credit and con-current enrollment with Collin County Community College in McKinney. Exemplary programs in the performing arts, visual arts, and athletics offer all our students opportunities to shine.

As McKinney ISD continues to grow and change, programs for the gifted and talented will also have to respond to these changes. Regardless of the changes, the underlying tone is that of rigor and chal-lenge whether it is for the bilingual kinder-garten student or the 12th grade student enrolled in AP courses. McKinney ISD’s ALPHA program reflect such a commit-ment to quality, variety, and challenge for its gifted students.


Lessons from an

Accidental TeacherBy Jim Delisle, Keynote Speaker The 29th Annual TAGT Conference

November 15-18, 2006Austin, Texas


In less than two years, I retire from a 30-year career I discovered by accident. Almost three decades ago, I began teach-ing in an area that I thought would remain my calling forever: special education for children with disabilities. But thanks to a brilliant, troubled 5th grader who caused me to look beyond his aberrant behaviors, the gifted realm I entered.

Early on in my experiences, I assumed I would learn everything I needed to learn about gifted children by reading about them from the cozy confines of higher education. Ph.D. in hand, I as-sumed my graduate students—every one a teacher—would present me with all the realities about gifted children that I would ever need to know. From my removed, vicarious, ivy-coated perch, I began to explore giftedness.

That didn’t work.The longer I was a professor, the more

I came to realize how much like a fish out of water I felt. Many of my colleagues had not been K-12 teachers for decades—if ever—yet, collectively, our faculty was

entrusted to mold the next generation of America’s teachers. “How could we do this effectively” I began to ask myself, “without current and sustained involve-ment in public school classrooms?” For reasons both professional and personal, I felt the need to return to my K-12 roots. That was in 1991, and so my journey be-gan as an accidental teacher of gifted children.

While remaining as a tenured full professor ( . . .is there a cushier job?), I dipped my toes back into the public school pool. During sabbaticals in 1991, 1997 and 2005, I taught grades 2, 4 and 8 in suburban Ohio and rural ( . .very rural) South Carolina. And, in 1998, due to a confluence of coincidences too numerous to list, I became a part-time teacher of gifted children in a middle school a few miles from my home. It’s been nine school years that I have been “Mr. D.” every Wednesday to my 7th and 8th graders and “Dr. Delisle” to my col-lege students when I stepped foot back on campus. This hybrid career has en-

ergized me in ways that allowed me to stay in education instead of chucking it all for a more lucrative career as a shoe salesman at Nordstrom’s. The kids keep me going, and here is a smidgen of what they taught their accidental teacher:

#1. Teaching gifted kids is easier than identifying them.

State regulations dictate who the gifted are and how we must identify them. Most of these provisions—and every state has them—are well-designed and effective.

Except when they aren’t.What do you do with Josh, an 8th

grader who looks like an adult and has the mind of a physicist, but who refuses to construct his ‘lame’ biome-in-a-shoe-box homework assignment? Or Anna, whose knowledge and love of football and theatre are so severe that she hides copies of the arts and sports sections of the daily paper between the pages of the social studies text she has never read? These students, neither identified as gifted by State standards, have intel-


lectual acuity far in excess of the typical 8th grader. How do I know this? I taught them both and, even more importantly, I talked with them both—repeatedly. And, as anyone knows who has worked with gifted kids for any length of time, a 20-minute talk with a boy like Josh or a girl like Anna is all you need to deter-mine their giftedness. Gifted children taught me—and they still do—to keep the numerically-based definitions of giftedness in perspective, knowing that intellectual and emotional depth are not always noted in too-low test scores.

#2. There really are ‘truly gifted’ kids.The only area of giftedness more con-

voluted than identification is the defini-tion of giftedness itself. Even within our field, different definitions abound—and they often conflict. While it is difficult to argue the ‘rightness’ or ‘wrongness’ of particular definitions without getting into philosophical arguments, one thing I have learned: some children are so ex-ceptional in their abilities to perceive the world from a vivid, complex perch that they qualify as “truly gifted” individu-als by any definition. The conception of giftedness that captures this essence most accurately was penned in 1982 by my “gifted grandmother”, Annemarie Roeper:

Giftedness is a greater awareness, a greater sensitivity, and a greater ability to understand and transform perceptions into intellectual and emotional experiences.

Such highly gifted children and adults require us to realign our views of intel-ligence to incorporate their social and emotional selves, not merely their aca-demic prowess or intellectual acumen. #3. Gifted kids don’t care how much you know until they know how much you care.

I realize this sounds trite, and it can be argued that this maxim is true for all children. That is probably so, but the keen insights of gifted children surface quickly; thus, we have but a small window of time to show them the depth of our convic-tions regarding the unique qualities they possess and the urgency we feel, as their teachers, in addressing them.

Too often maligned by a society that holds stereotypic images of gifted in-dividuals, gifted children need us for so much. We must be the people who advocate for those gifted students who underachieve, or those whose intel-lectual prowess screams out “accelerate me! accelerate me!”, or those who need the comfort of a dry, caring shoulder when classmates don’t understand their need for complex games or meaningful conversations.

Teachers of gifted children often share the traits of those they have chosen to teach. We must use this connection to our mutual advantage.

#4. Intensity comes with the territory. The single word that describes most

accurately the gifted people I know is ‘intense’. With brains that work over-time, emotions that push the extremes of sorrow and joy, and a sensitivity to the needs of others that is deep and con-stant, these intense individuals are often perceived by others as . . .well . . .just a tad “too much”. Chided with directives to ‘chill out’ or ‘not take things so per-sonally”, gifted individuals with these intensities may come to feel that what comes naturally to them is, in the eyes of others, unnatural.

I prefer another angle. To me, intensi-ties are assets that allow gifted individu-als to experience the world in a higher key; to see the forest and the trees; to perceive the difference between magenta and mauve; and to listen to a piece of music and grasp the composer’s frame of mind that created such beauty. The gifted children I’ve taught and coun-seled who remain foremost in my mind are those who embraced these inborn intensities. Sometimes, the intensities hurt, and at other times they cause un-bridled ecstasy. But those who see their intensities as assets to be exploited and not deficiencies to be downplayed are the ones who understand the richness that can accompany a gifted mind.

#5. Underachievers can teach us what we need to do to improve the school experience for most gifted students.

I’ve always held a soft spot in my heart for those high-potential kids who choose

to do poorly in school (My special edu-cation roots are showing!!). Generally, they are an inquisitive and principled bunch who don’t buy into the idea that high grades indicate much of anything, especially when the curriculum that garnered you the high grades is low level and lacking in true substance. Gifted kids who underachieve push our buttons, they demand relevance, and they force us to question the legitimacy of our educa-tional practices.

“This is boring!” they say. ( . . .and they’re right.)

“What does this have to do with any-thing in the real world?” they ask. (like us, they search for meaning in their learning.)

“Didn’t I learn this 2 years ago?” they utter in frustration. (We know they did, but we’ve got to prepare them for the TAKS, don’t we?)

Collectively and individually, gifted underachievers have more to teach us about making schools right and relevant than do their high-achieving counter-parts who go through school passively, “earning” unearned A’s on material they already knew before the class began.

If I had as much time as I do inclina-tion, I would convene regularly a series of meetings with gifted kids with low grades. I’d ask them for help in designing learning options that would tap into their talents and passions. My hunch is that I’d hear that they want these things:

• intelligent, enthusiastic teachers who see learning as a journey to pursue alongside students rather than just a bucket of facts to spew out in discon-nected fashion

• an emphasis away from textbooks and towards hands-on experiences inside and outside of the school building and calendar, led by experts in the domains of science, literature, the arts, and more

• classroom conversations about seem-ingly absurd propositions—“why doesn’t gravity make things go up instead of down?”—as well as open talks about relationships, politics, family and friends


Like canaries in a coal mine, who warn of dangers ahead, gifted underachievers are the harbingers of all that might be good, and that might be worthwhile to en-rich the minds and hearts of all students.

Why won’t we listen to them?

#6. Giftedness is someone you are, not something you do.

There are those who believe that gift-edness is manifest in the books a person writes, the artworks they paint or the theories they postulate. “Gifted behav-iors”, they shout, “not gifted children”.

How naive; how wrong.What these behavior-based zealots call

“giftedness” is little more than a mani-festation of specific talents, honed over time and put forth for others to enjoy or critique. I do not diminish the merits of these productions; nor, though, do I con-fuse these creations with giftedness, that innate ability to see what others your age do not yet see; to feel emotions at levels

that the majority do not express; and to analyze seemingly disparate pieces of life and learning into a whole that is cohe-sive only to those others with intellectual depth that is equal to their own.

Giftedness does not come and go; it is as permanent as eye color and as indelible as a birthmark. It is a part of daily living that affects one’s learning, social relation-ships and emotional bonds. Unlike with talents, you can’t train someone to be gifted with continued exposure and prac-tice. Instead, gifted people simply are, and the insights they possess naturally will be with them forever. Giftedness is not a transitory preoccupation with an interest, it is a forever passion to always crave more—from yourself, others and the world in general.

ConclusionThese things I learned from gifted chil-

dren. And every week, as I walk into my classroom of 30+ gifted middle school

students, my beliefs are reinforced and my appreciation of them grows expo-nentially. May you experience a similar joy with those gifted children and adults who enter your days and nights, whether you meet them on purpose or, like me, as an accidental teacher.

Jim Delisle is Distinguished Professor of Education at Kent State University and a part-time teacher of gifted chil-dren in Twinsburg, Ohio. The author of 200+ articles and 14 books, Jim’s newest publications include Parenting Gifted Kids (Prufrock Press, 2006), Smart Talk and More Than A Test Score (both with Robert Schultz, Free Spirit Publishing, 2007).


A Learning

By Brenda K. Flowers

Community Model


Red Oak ISD is a 4A district with seven campuses. Providing direct ser-vices to gifted students has taken effort, creativity, and planning. While the cur-rent model is not without its challenges, Red Oak ISD believes itself fortunate to work in a setting that takes into account the unique needs of the gifted learner. Currently every gifted student, in kin-dergarten through grade 12, has access to direct services taught in a multi-dis-ciplinary setting.

The service model was built upon the belief that there is a degree of right-brain prominence in every gifted child. By presenting the curriculum in an inter-disciplinary manner, the students are encouraged to draw connections and to synthesize their research. Students quite literally conduct a search for mean-ing. Culminating research projects give students the opportunity to share the knowledge and experience they have gained.

Hord (1997) lists seven characteristics of a true professional learning commu-nity: shared leadership, collective learn-ing, shared values and vision, supportive conditions, structural arrangements, col-legial relationships, and shared personal practice. Although Hord is speaking of a community of educators, the charac-teristics align with Red Oak’s vision of gifted student learning communities should become.

Transformation can only happen if the leader allows and nurtures that growth. This can be a bit scary when dealing with the reality of letting a group of gifted children have some of the control that educators prefer to retain. Loosening the reins on that favorite unit in order to study something that the class wants to learn more about is part of collective learning. However, change without mo-tion is like a car without gas. It may look promising, but it is not going to get you anywhere (Hord, 1997).

Given that the primary focus must always remain on student learning, de-fining shared values and a shared vision are key. As a part of this process, the class determines their shared norms and working rules. Gifted children need to know where their boundaries are, what is acceptable and what is not, particularly

when required to work closely with oth-ers. Community structures are built as an appreciation for the skills, knowledge, and abilities of others is discovered.

Providing good structural arrange-ments in terms of classroom set-up as well as accessibility to needed resources, and setting a collegial tone are all ele-ments that the teacher must strive to incorporate. Lastly, there is the need to have students become comfortable with the peer review process. Students need to hone these skills by practicing them in a safe and open environment.

At the elementary school level in Red Oak ISD, the concept of the Learning Community is introduced in kindergar-ten. Students in kindergarten through fourth grade often work in groups to solve a problem or conduct a learning ac-tivity. During these sessions, the teacher becomes the facilitator as the students take charge of their learning. In addi-tion, area contests such as Destination Imagination provide opportunities for our students to have experiences beyond the classroom setting. As the gifted stu-dent progresses through intermediate and junior high school, the difficulty level of the classroom activities or units increase. However, the focus on estab-lishing a learning community remains the same. Students are taught to work together for a common goal, and en-couraged to produce products that are a reflection of their learning.

Our high school program best reflects the Learning Community model. Each student picks a topic that he or she would like to research for the entire school year. The teacher and student work together to find a mentor, who assists the student in their learning process throughout the school year. Topics range from learning how to play a musical instrument to in-vestigating how religion affects political parties in small countries. At the end of the year, students have a “product night” to showcase their learning.

Teaching gifted students to work to-gether with other students in the pro-gram, with classmates outside of the gifted class, and with the community, is a major goal of the Red Oak ISD pro-gram. Other benefits to the Learning Community model are the ability to

assist students in learning how to self-impose structure, how to narrow a focus from a broad topic to a manageable one, and how to stay with one concept or activity for an extended period of time. Additionally, the Learning Community model does not involve a programmatic cost.

DuFour (1998) states that school re-form has failed because the task is com-plicated, focus becomes misdirected, goals are unclear, failure to persevere, and failure to give appropriate attention to the change process. Implementing a Learning Communities model is not an overnight task. Teacher and building leadership training, a good understand-ing of the world to which students are entering, and a healthy dose of solid instructional leadership are integral components to a Learning Community model. However, with proper planning and effort, the model can provide an exceptional fit for the needs our gifted students.

ReferencesDuFour, R., & Eaker, R. (1998).

Professional learning communities at work. Bloomington, IN: National Educational Service.

Hord, S. (1997). Professional learning communities: What are they and why are they important? Issues About Change, 6(1), 1-3.

by Susan K. Johnsen

New National Standards for

Teachers of Gifted and Talented

Students


During the past two years, the Association for the Gifted (TAG), a division of the Council for Exceptional Children, and the National Association for Gifted Children (NAGC) have been involved in the development and validation of initial standards for professionals in the field of gifted education (Johnsen, 2004, 2006). A work set team comprised of members from both organizations was formed. This team initiated a series of meetings to ensure that all stakeholders (e.g., PK-12 teachers and administrators, university professors, policymakers, professional or-ganizations, and parents) were involved in the development and in the review of the emerging standards. After approval by the NAGC and CEC-TAG Boards, the Council for Exceptional Children disseminated a national survey, which was compiled, and ultimately reviewed and approved by CEC’s Professional Standards and Practice Committee. These initial standards will now provide the framework for course development within universities or alter-native preparation programs designed for individuals who need an entry-level certifi-cate in gifted education. They may also be used in evaluating teacher performance in public or private school settings.

What do these new standards mean for our field? First and most importantly, we as a field agree that teachers in gifted educa-tion must adhere to standards similar to teachers in other fields (Johnsen, 2006). Not every teacher is qualified to teach gifted and talented students. Of the 21 states that mandate a certificate, a license, or an endorsement in gifted education, Texas has the least number of hours re-quired by the law—30 clock hours—fewer hours than one university course (National Association for Gifted Children, 2005). We must therefore continue to push for policies and laws that demand high quality teachers who have acquired the knowledge and skills identified in these standards.

Second, the standards, which are based on solid research, legitimize gifted educa-tion as a recognized field of study not only at the university level but also among our colleagues in other fields in public and private school settings (Johnsen, 2006). In revalidating the standards, the work set team identified three types of sup-porting research: literature/theory-based, research-based, and practice-based. Literature- and theory-based research in-cluded knowledge and skills derived from sources such as position papers, policy analyses, and descriptive reviews of the literature. Research-based studies included

peer-reviewed articles that use rigorous research methodologies to address ques-tions of cause and effect and that have been independently replicated and found to be effective. Practice-based research included lighthouse studies, professional wisdom, and emerging practices that arise from teachers’ classroom experiences and are validated through some degree of ac-tion research (all definitions are from the Professional Standards and Practice Committee of the Council for Exceptional Children). Research supported each of the 10 overarching standards, the 32 knowl-edge standards, and the 37 skill standards (see Standards in this issue).

Third, with 26 of the standards overtly addressing diversity, the standards reveal our field’s commitment to all gifted stu-dents, particularly those from underrepre-sented groups (Johnsen, 2006). It reinforces the notion that diversity exists in our soci-ety and in each individual’s expression of gifts and talents. This focus is particularly important in Texas where the “minority” is now a “majority” of the state population. We must actively work to guarantee that all groups have equal access to gifted and talented programs.

Fourth, these standards can act as a guide for professional development and evaluation (Downs, 2006). Using the following steps, a school district might develop a more standards-based assess-ment of teachers of gifted and talented. Initially the district would adopt these ten standards to establish a framework for a common understanding of the knowledge and skills needed to be a teacher of gifted and talented. Next, the district would col-laborate with a university or independently develop a series of modules, workshops, or courses that might address each of the standards. These courses would be offered to teachers who are interested in teaching gifted and talented students. The district would then train assessors in observing and analyzing the standards-related skills to determine if the teacher was imple-menting the knowledge and skills in the classroom. Finally, these observations would be used as the basis for professional development and/or for evaluations.

Last but not least, these standards have the potential of raising the quality of services provided to gifted students and their families (Johnsen, 2006). In her multivariate analysis, Darling-Hammond (2000) reported that in all cases teach-ers with full certification status are “by far the most important determinant of student achievement” (p. 30). We know

that teachers with limited training do not differentiate instruction for high-ability learners (Archambault, Westberg, Brown, Hallmark, Zhang, & Emmons., 1993; Gentry, Rizza, & Owen, 2002; Starko & Schack, 1989; Westberg, Archambault, Dobyns, & Salvin, 1993). On the other hand, teachers who are prepared in gifted education lecture less, emphasize more higher level thinking, and conduct more discussions (Hansen & Feldhusen, 1994). Students are therefore the ultimate ben-eficiaries of high standards for teachers.

I want to publicly acknowledge the mem-bers of the work set team who committed their time and energy to the standards de-velopment process: Joyce VanTassel-Baska, President of the National Association for Gifted Children; Diane Montgomery, President of the Association for the Gifted, Council for Exceptional Children; Susan Johnsen, Margie Kitano, Rick Olenchak, and Karen Rogers. Now it is our job to make sure that we advocate for high qual-ity teachers of gifted and talented by dis-seminating and using these new national standards.

ReferencesArchambault, F. X., Westberg, K. L.,

Brown, S. W., Hallmark, B. W., Zhang, W., & Emmons, C. L. (1993). Classroom practices used with gifted third and fourth grade students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 16, 103-119.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state policy evidence. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 8(1). Retrieved October 15, 2003, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n1

Downs, A. (2006). Standards-based evalu-ation for teachers. Harvard Education Letter, 22(2), 4-6.

Gentry, M., Rizza, M. G., & Owen, S. V. (2002). Examining perceptions of chal-lenge and choice in classrooms: The relationship between teachers and their students and comparisons between gifted students and other students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 46, 145-155.

Hansen, J. B., & Feldhusen, J. F. (1994). Comparison of trained and untrained teachers of gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38, 115-121.

Johnsen, S. (2004). National standards for teachers of gifted and talented students: Becoming involved. Gifted Child Today, 27(3), 5.

Johnsen, S. (2006). New national standards for teachers of gifted and talented stu-dents. Gifted Child Today, 29, 5.

New National Standards for

Teachers of Gifted and Talented

Students


National Association for Gifted Children (2005). 2004-2005 State of the states: A report by the National Association for Gifted Children and the Council of State Directors of Programs for the Gifted. Washington, DC: Author.

Starko, A. J., & Shack, G. D. (1989). Perceived need, teacher efficacy, and teaching strategies for the gifted and talented. Gifted Child Quarterly, 33, 118-122.

Westberg, K. L., Archambault, F. X., Dobyins, S. M., & Salvin, T. J. (1993). The classroom practices observation study. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 16, 120-146.

Standard 1: Foundations

Educators of the gifted understand the field as an evolving and changing disci-pline based on philosophies, evidence-based principles and theories, relevant laws and policies, diverse and historical points of view, and human issues. These perspectives continue to influence the field of gifted education and the education and treatment of individuals with gifts and talents both in school and society. They recognize how foundational influences affect professional practice, including as-sessment, instructional planning, delivery, and program evaluation. They further understand how issues of human diversity impact families, cultures, and schools, and how these complex human issues can in-teract in the delivery of gifted and talented education services.

GT1K1: Historical foundations of gifted and talented education including points of view and contributions of individuals from diverse backgrounds.

GT1K2: Key philosophies, theories, mod-els, and research supporting gifted and talented education.

GT1K3. Local, state/provincial, and federal laws and policies related to gifted and tal-ented education.

GT1K4: Issues in conceptions, definitions, and identification of gifts and talents, in-cluding those of individuals from diverse backgrounds.

GT1K5: Impact of the dominant culture’s role in shaping schools and the differences in values, languages, and customs between school and home.

GT1K6: Societal, cultural, and economic factors, including anti-intellectualism and equity vs. excellence, enhancing or inhibit-ing the development of gifts and talents.

GT1K7: Key issues and trends, includ-ing diversity and inclusion, connecting general, special, and gifted and talented education.

Standard 2: Development and Characteristics of Learners

Educators of the gifted know and demon-strate respect for their students as unique human beings. They understand varia-tions in characteristics and development between and among individuals with and without exceptional learning needs and ca-pacities. Educators of the gifted can express how different characteristics interact with the domains of human development and use this knowledge to describe the varying abilities and behaviors of individuals with gifts and talents. Educators of the gifted also understand how families and com-munities contribute to the development of individuals with gifts and talents.

GT2K1: Cognitive and affective character-istics of individuals with gifts and talents, including those from diverse backgrounds, in intellectual, academic, creative, leader-ship, and artistic domains.

GT2K2: Characteristics and effects of cul-ture and environment on the development of individuals with gifts and talents.

GT2K3: Role of families and communities in supporting the development of individu-als with gifts and talents.

GT2K4: Advanced developmental mile-stones of individuals with gifts and talents from early childhood through adoles-cence.

GT2K5: Similarities and differences within the group of individuals with gifts and talents as compared to the general population.

Standard 3: Individual Learning Differences

Educators of the gifted understand the effects that gifts and talents can have on an individual’s learning in school and throughout life. Moreover, educators of

the gifted are active and resourceful in seeking to understand how language, cul-ture, and family background interact with an individual’s predispositions to impact academic and social behavior, attitudes, values, and interests. The understanding of these learning differences and their interactions provides the foundation upon which educators of the gifted plan instruc-tion to provide meaningful and challeng-ing learning.

GT 3K1: Influences of diversity factors on individuals with exceptional learning needs.

GT3K2: Academic and affective charac-teristics and learning needs of individuals with gifts, talents, and disabilities.

GT3K3: Idiosyncratic learning patterns of individuals with gifts and talents, includ-ing those from diverse backgrounds.

GT3K4: Influences of different beliefs, traditions, and values across and within diverse groups on relationships among individuals with gifts and talents, their families, schools, and communities.

GT3S1: Integrate perspectives of diverse groups into planning instruction for indi-viduals with gifts and talents.

Standard 4: Instructional Strategies

Educators of the gifted possess a reper-toire of evidence-based curriculum and instructional strategies to differentiate for individuals with gifts and talents. They select, adapt, and use these strategies to promote challenging learning opportuni-ties in general and special curricula and to modify learning environments to enhance self-awareness and self-efficacy for individ-uals with gifts and talents. They enhance the learning of critical and creative think-ing, problem solving, and performance skills in specific domains. Moreover, edu-cators of the gifted emphasize the devel-opment, practice, and transfer of advanced knowledge and skills across environments throughout the lifespan leading to creative, productive careers in society for individu-als with gifts and talents.

GT4K1: School and community resources, including content specialists, which sup-port differentiation.


GT4K2: Curricular, instructional, and management strategies effective for indi-viduals with exceptional learning needs.

GT4S1: Apply pedagogical content knowl-edge to instructing learners with gifts and talents.

GT4S2: Apply higher-level thinking and metacognitive models to content areas to meet the needs of individuals with gifts and talents.

GT4S3: Provide opportunities for indi-viduals with gifts and talents to explore, develop, or research their areas of interest or talent.

GT4S4: Preassess the learning needs of individuals with gifts and talents in vari-ous domains and adjust instruction based on continual assessment.

GT4S5: Pace delivery of curriculum and instruction consistent with needs of indi-viduals with gifts and talents.

GT4S6: Engage individuals with gifts and talents from all backgrounds in challeng-ing, multicultural curricula.

GT4S7: Use information and/or assistive technologies to meet the needs of individu-als with exceptional learning needs.

Standard 5: Learning Environments and Social Interactions

Educators of the gifted actively create learning environments for individuals with gifts and talents that foster cultural understanding, safety and emotional well being, positive social interactions, and ac-tive engagement. In addition, educators of the gifted foster environments in which di-versity is valued and individuals are taught to live harmoniously and productively in a culturally diverse world. Educators of the gifted shape environments to encourage independence, motivation, and self-advo-cacy of individuals with gifts and talents.

GT5K1: Ways in which groups are stereo-typed and experience historical and cur-rent discrimination and implications for gifted and talented education.

GT5K2: Influence of social and emotional development on interpersonal relation-ships and learning of individuals with gifts and talents.

GT5S1: Design learning opportunities for individuals with gifts and talents that promote self-awareness, positive peer re-lationships, intercultural experiences, and leadership.

GT5S2: Create learning environments for individuals with gifted and talents that promote self-awareness, self-efficacy, lead-ership, and lifelong learning.

GT5S3: Create safe learning environments for individuals with gifts and talents that encourage active participation in indi-vidual and group activities to enhance in-dependence, interdependence, and positive peer relationships.

GT5S4: Create learning environments and intercultural experiences that allow individuals with gifts and talents to appre-ciate their own and others’ language and cultural heritage.

GT5S5: Develop social interaction and coping skills in individuals with gifts and talents to address personal and social is-sues, including discrimination and stereo-typing.

Standard 6: Language and Communication

Educators of the gifted understand the role of language and communication in talent development and the ways in which exceptional conditions can hinder or facilitate such development. They use rel-evant strategies to teach oral and written communication skills to individuals with gifts and talents. Educators of the gifted are familiar with assistive technologies to support and enhance communication of individuals with exceptional needs. They match their communication methods to an individual’s language proficiency and cul-tural and linguistic differences. Educators


of the gifted use communication strategies and resources to facilitate understanding of subject matter for individuals with gifts and talents who are English learners.

GT6K1: Forms and methods of commu-nication essential to the education of in-dividuals with gifts and talents, including those from diverse backgrounds.

GT6K2: Impact of diversity on commu-nication.

GT6K3: Implications of culture, behavior, and language on the development of indi-viduals with gifts and talents.

GT6S1: Access resources and develop strategies to enhance communication skills for individuals with gifts and talents including those with advanced communi-cation and/or English language learners.

GT6S2: Use advanced oral and written communication tools, including assistive technologies, to enhance the learning ex-periences of individuals with exceptional learning needs.

Standard 7: Instructional Planning

Curriculum and instructional plan-ning is at the center of gifted and talented education. Educators of the gifted develop long-range plans anchored in both general and special curricula. They systematically translate shorter-range goals and objec-tives that take into consideration an indi-vidual’s abilities and needs, the learning environment, and cultural and linguistic factors. Understanding of these factors, as well as the implications of being gifted and talented, guides the educator’s selection, adaptation, and creation of materials, and use of differentiated instructional strat-

egies. Learning plans are modified based on ongoing assessment of the individual’s progress. Moreover, educators of the gifted facilitate these actions in a collaborative context that includes individuals with gifts and talents, families, professional col-leagues, and personnel from other agencies as appropriate. Educators of the gifted are comfortable using technologies to support instructional planning and individualized instruction.

GT7K1: Theories and research models that form the basis of curriculum development and instructional practice for individuals with gifts and talents.

GT7K2: Features that distinguish differen-tiated curriculum from general curricula for individuals with exceptional learning needs.

GT7K3: Curriculum emphasis for in-dividuals with gifts and talents within cognitive, affective, aesthetic, social, and linguistic domains.

GT7S1: Align differentiated instructional plans with local, state/provincial, and na-tional curricular standards.

GT7S2: Design differentiated learning plans for individuals with gifts and tal-ents, including individuals from diverse backgrounds.

GT7S3: Develop scope and sequence plans for individuals with gifts and talents.

GT7S4: Select curriculum resources, strat-egies, and product options that respond to cultural, linguistic, and intellectual dif-ferences among individuals with gifts and talents.

GT7S5: Select and adapt a variety of dif-ferentiated curricula that incorporate advanced, conceptually challenging, in-depth, distinctive, and complex content.

GT7S6: Integrate academic and career guidance experiences into the learning plan for individuals with gifts and talents.

Standard 8: Assessment

Assessment is integral to the decision-making and teaching of educators of the gifted as multiple types of assessment information are required for both identi-fication and learning progress decisions.


Educators of the gifted use the results of such assessments to adjust instruction and to enhance ongoing learning prog-ress. Educators of the gifted understand the process of identification, legal policies, and ethical principles of measurement and assessment related to referral, eligibil-ity, program planning, instruction, and placement for individuals with gifts and talents, including those from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds. They understand measurement theory and practices for addressing the interpre-tation of assessment results. In addition, educators of the gifted understand the appropriate use and limitations of various types of assessments. To ensure the use of nonbiased and equitable identification and learning progress models, educators of the gifted employ alternative assessments such as performance-based assessment, portfo-lios, and computer simulations.

GT8K1: Processes and procedures for the identification of individuals with gifts and talents.

GT8K2: Uses, limitations, and interpreta-tion of multiple assessments in different domains for identifying individuals with exceptional learning needs, including those from diverse backgrounds.

GT8K3: Uses and limitations of assess-ments documenting academic growth of individuals with gifts and talents.

GT8S1: Use non-biased and equitable ap-proaches for identifying individuals with gifts and talents, including those from diverse backgrounds.

GT8S2: Use technically adequate qualita-tive and quantitative assessments for iden-tifying and placing individuals with gifts and talents.

GT8S3: Develop differentiated curriculum-based assessments for use in instructional planning and delivery for individuals with gifts and talents.

GT8S4: Use alternative assessments and technologies to evaluate learning of indi-viduals with gifts and talents.

Standard 9: Professional and Ethical Practice

Educators of the gifted are guided by the profession’s ethical and professional

practice standards. They practice in mul-tiple roles and complex situations across wide age and developmental ranges. Their practice requires ongoing attention to professional and ethical considerations. They engage in professional activities that promote growth in individuals with gifts and talents and update themselves on evidence-based best practices. Educators of the gifted view themselves as lifelong learners and regularly reflect on and adjust their practice. They are aware of how atti-tudes, behaviors, and ways of communicat-ing can influence their practice. Educators of the gifted understand that culture and language interact with gifts and talents and are sensitive to the many aspects of the di-versity of individuals with gifts and talents and their families.

GT9K1: Personal and cultural frames of reference that affect one’s teaching of individuals with gifts and talents, includ-ing biases about individuals from diverse backgrounds.

GT9K2: Organizations and publications relevant to the field of gifted and talented education.

GT9S1: Assess personal skills and limita-tions in teaching individuals with excep-tional learning needs.

GT9S2: Maintain confidential commu-nication about individuals with gifts and talents.

GT9S3: Encourage and model respect for the full range of diversity among individu-als with gifts and talents.

GT9S4: Conduct activities in gifted and talented education in compliance with laws, policies, and standards of ethical practice.

GT9S5: Improve practice through con-tinuous research-supported professional development in gifted education and re-lated fields.

GT9S6: Participate in the activities of pro-fessional organizations related to gifted and talented education.

GT9S7: Reflect on personal practice to improve teaching and guide professional growth in gifted and talented education.

Standard 10: Collaboration

Educators of the gifted effectively col-laborate with families, other educators, and related service providers. This collabora-tion enhances comprehensive articulated program options across educational levels and engagement of individuals with gifts and talents in meaningful learning activi-ties and interactions. Moreover, educators of the gifted embrace their special role as advocate for individuals with gifts and talents. They promote and advocate for the learning and well being of individuals with gifts and talents across settings and diverse learning experiences.

GT10K1: Culturally responsive behaviors that promote effective communication and collaboration with individuals with gifts and talents, their families, school person-nel, and community members.

GT10S1: Respond to concerns of families of individuals with gifts and talents.

GT10S2: Collaborate with stakeholders outside the school setting who serve in-dividuals with exceptional learning needs and their families.

GT10S3: Advocate for the benefit of in-dividuals with gifts and talents and their families.

GT10S4: Collaborate with individuals with gifts and talents, their families, general, and special educators, and other school staff to articulate a comprehensive preschool through secondary educational program.

GT10S5: Collaborate with families, com-munity members, and professionals in assessment of individuals with gifts and talents.

GT10S6: Communicate and consult with school personnel about the characteristics and needs of individuals with gifts and talents, including individuals from diverse backgrounds.


32


BOOK rEVIEWSWritten by Jim Delisle, Parenting Gifted Kids: Tips for

Raising Happy and Successful Children (ISBN 1-59363-179-0), offers an engaging perspective on raising gifted children. Delisle offers 10 practical tips to parenting gifted kids. Topics include: understanding a child’s giftedness, ex-amining overexcitabilities, working with the school system, dealing with perfectionism in gifted kids, being adult role models for children, building a child’s character, and help-ing kids achieve their goal and dreams. Delisle draws on his own experience as a parent of a gifted child and teacher of the gifted. For more information contact Prufrock Press, PO Box 8813, Waco, TX 76714, (800) 998-2208, http://www.prufrock.com.

Smart Kids With Learning Difficulties (ISBN 1-59363-180-4) is the collective work of over 20 years of experi-ence working with and advocating for the gifted/learning disabled learner. The authors present proven learning and teaching methods that can be applied to both gifted and talented and the learning-disabled populations. Identifying and recognizing gifted/learning-disabled students, what the law says about this population, planning and developing ac-commodations that empower these students, what works and doesn’t work in the classroom, building supportive learning environments, and the roles and responsibilities of parents, students, and school personnel are just some of the issues addressed. For more information contact Prufrock Press, PO Box 8813, Waco, TX 76714, (800) 998-2208, http://www.prufrock.com.

College Planning for Gifted Students: Choosing and Getting Into the Right College is a must have for any gifted or advanced learner planning to attend college. Sandra Berger, a nationally recognized expert on college and career planning for gifted students, provides a hands-on, practical guide to college planning in this revised volume of the best-selling College Planning for Gifted Students book.

Berger focuses specifically on helping gifted students dis-cover who they are, and how that discovery corresponds to finding the perfect postsecondary endeavor. The author also provides useful, practical advice for• writing college application essays,• requesting recommendation letters,• visiting colleges, and • acing the college entrance interview.

For more information contact Prufrock Press, PO Box 8813, Waco, TX 76714, (800) 998-2208, http://www.pru-frock.com.

34

Tempo welcomes manuscripts from educators, parents, and other advocates of gifted education. Tempo is a juried publication, and manuscripts are evaluated by members of the editorial board and/or other reviewers.

Please keep the following in mind when submitting manuscripts:1. Manuscripts should be 5–12 pages on

an upcoming topic. 2. References should follow the APA style

as outlined in the fifth edition of the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association.

3. Submit two copies of your typed, 12 pt. font, double-spaced manuscript. Use a 1 ½" margin on all sides. One copy of the manuscript must be submitted electronically to the editor.

4. In addition to a title page, a cover page must be attached that includes the author’s name, title, school and program affiliation, home and work address, e-mail address, phone numbers, and fax number.

5. Place tables, figures, illustrations, and photographs on separate pages. Illustrations must be in black ink on white paper. Photographs must be glossy prints, either black and white or color, or transparencies. Each should have a title.

6. Authors of accepted manuscripts must transfer copyright to Tempo, which holds copyright to all articles and reviews.

Guidelines for Article Submissionsupcoming Issues:

Fall 2006Deadline: September 1, 2006

Winter 2006-2007Deadline: December 1, 2006

Spring 2007Deadline: March 1, 2007

Jennifer L. Jolly, Ph.D., Tempo EditorTAGT406 E. 11th St, Suite 310Austin, TX [email protected]

Texas Association for the Gifted and Talented406 East 11th Street, Suite 310Austin, Texas 78701-2617

Non Profit Org.U.S. Postage

PAIDAustin, Texas

Permit No. 941

Summer 2006 • Volume XXVI, Issue 3 TEMPO · 2015. 2. 19. · Summer 2006 • Tempo • Texas...

Documents

Transcript of Summer 2006 • Volume XXVI, Issue 3 TEMPO · 2015. 2. 19. · Summer 2006 • Tempo • Texas...