Gifted Children V2N1

8/14/2019 Gifted Children V2N1

1/17

Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent.It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite directio

Einstein

GIFTED CHILDRENAn Electronic Journal of the AERA SIG Research on Giftedness and Talent. Volume 2 Number 1 Fall 2007

Hello from the Editor,Dona Matthews

Ive been enjoying my correspondence with you as Ive been assembling articles forthis issue of the e-journal of the AERA ROGAT Special Interest Group. I love thevibrancy of this e-journal format, as it allows people to report on work in progress anddiscuss ideas in the field as they emerge.

Im a great proponent of the motivation, engagement, and learning possibilities inthoughtfully informed controversy, and youll see that weve got a good bit of that inthis issue. We have a review by Joan Freeman of a book on a very controversial topicin our field, Indigo Children. And in a funny coincidental way, that piece ties into oneof our other contributionsJoe Renzulli is the only other person in the field who Iveheard (at NAGC last year) publicly discuss this phenomenon, saying that it is one ofthe worst things to happen to our field in the past ten years, and Joe has written apiece for this issue on the Renzulli Learning System. It is my opinion that RenzulliLearning is one of the most exciting advances in the field of education in many years.It enables children and educators to take practical guided advantage of the powerful

learning opportunity that is the Internet. The possibilities for supporting gifteddevelopment are extraordinary, and only just beginning to be realized.

This ties into the piece that Michael Matthews (no relative!) has written on thechanging legislation on gifted identification in FloridaMichaels concern is that withthese changes, English Language Learners who need the kind of support that RenzulliLearning provides will not be getting it. Similarly, Holly Hertberg Daviss descriptionof the research that she is doing with Carolyn Callahan focuses on making sure thatall students get the support that they need for optimal academic development; she hasgiven us an early report on research in progress to consider ways to close theachievement by race gap in high school, specifically in AP courses. This theme ofaddressing cultural/racial diversity in our field continues with Marcia Gentrys

description of her research project at Purdue with Project HOPE, working to providesummer and Saturday learning opportunities for high-ability children who aregrowing up in low-income families, as well as professional development for teachersworking with these students.

(continued on page 9)

AERA Special Interest Groups Web Site:http://www.aeragifted.org/

Contents

Letter from the Editor Dona Matthews ........................... 1

Identification and Interventionfor Rural, Low-income, GiftedStudents: A Follow-up Study

Shirley Aamidor .......................... 2

Economic Arguments for GiftedEducation

Pamela R. Clinkenbeard............. 6

Project HOPE Jillian C. Gates, Marcia Gentry,Rebecca L. Mann,& Jean S. Peterson ..8

Pathways to the Top:Scaffolding Success for Blackand Latino Students

Holly Hertberg-Davis .............. 10

Assessing the Impact of aProposed Rule ChangeMichael S. Matthews ............... 12

A Technology-Based Resource Joseph S. Renzulli& Sally M. Reis ......................... 14

Book ReviewThe Indigo Children: The New Kids Have Arrived

Reviewer: Joan Freeman ........ 15

AERA Research on Giftednessand Talent SIG .............................. 16 NAGC Conferemce Highlights

Matthew Makel ................................16 Officers ........................................... 17

Working Committees ................... 17


2/17

To identify children who demonstrate talent potential,educators and researchers have begun to use multiple-measure assessments rather than the narrower approachtraditionally used to identify children for academically giftedprograms, usually IQ or standardized achievement test scores.One impetus for this change is the concern that many groupsof children are under-identified and therefore under-represented in gifted programs. Included in the under-represented population are children from specific racial,ethnic, and cultural groups, e.g., African Americans (Ford,Grantham, & Harris, 1996; Frasier, 1987); Hispanic students(Bernal, 1979); American Indians (Tonemah, 1987); childrenwho exhibit language differences or limitations; children fromlow socioeconomic status families (qualifying for poverty-level support or free or reduced cost lunch); and children wholive in certain geographic areas (e.g., rural or inner-city areas,border communities, and reservations).

The reality and limitations of many of the traditionalidentification processes are, more often than not, at variancewith contemporary research and policy on identification.Whereas appropriate practices may call for amultidimensional approach, identification data are toofrequently collected from a single standardized measure andteacher nominations. While important in the identification ofsome gifted children, traditional identification measures suchas group standardized aptitude and/or achievement testsought not be the sole criterion in the identification process.When used as the initial screening instrument to define a poolof gifted and talented candidates, standardized measures mayunder-identify or eliminate gifted and talented minoritystudents, including students from rural and inner cityeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds.

Standardized assessments and teacher nominations areefficient and can be effective in identifying some giftedchildren, but are not always appropriate for identifying highability children whose behavioral characteristics do not pleasetheir teachers, who perform poorly on tests, or, whoseacademic achievement has been constrained because oflimited experiences or opportunities. Identifying economicallydisadvantaged gifted children in rural areas must beconsidered within the context of rural communities, ruralschooling, and within the context of the two social classes,those who have control, and those who are vulnerable to thatcontrol, the haves and have-nots (Duncan, 1992). TheNational Education Longitudinal Study (NCES, 1988)reported that only 9 percent of students in gifted and talentededucation programs were in the bottom quartile of familyincome, while 47 percent of program participants were fromthe top quartile in family income. While research concerningalternative assessment is reported in the literature (Bernal,1979; Frasier, 1987; Maker, 1986; Tonemah, 1987), these aresomewhat dated, with only a few studies that focus on rural,

economically disadvantaged, gifted children (Spicker, 1993,1996). Also, documenting the efficacy of appropriateinstruments or processes to identify students from under-represented groups who show academic potential has notbeen fruitful due to lack of follow-up on students. In somecases, promising practices and alternative identificationprocedures have been discontinued because studentsidentified through their use were not successful in giftedprograms, which were designed for traditionally identifiedgifted students. Studies which have considered new or uniquemethods of identification have found it difficult to follow upon the appropriate type of program intervention required toserve rural, economically disadvantaged students or to studythe long-term effects of alternative identification on studentsas they proceed through the school system.

Projects SPRING I and SPRING II

Beginning in 1990, Project SPRING (Special Populations RuralInformation Network for the Gifted), one of sixteen projectsfunded under the Jacob Javits Gifted and Talented EducationAct of 1988, investigated the unique talents of rural,economically disadvantaged, gifted students. The project,implemented in three rural school districts in southernIndiana, accomplished the following goals:

1. Identified strengths and weaknesses whichcharacterize rural, economically disadvantaged, giftedchildren.

2. Developed procedures for identifying rural,disadvantaged, gifted children.

3. Developed and demonstrated curricula andintervention practices appropriate for rural,economically disadvantaged, gifted students.

A continuation of Project SPRING I in two school districtsfollowed-up those SPRING students identified in the fourthgrade, who were entering junior high school. The modifiedscience provided appropriate educational programming forstudents. Project SPRING II (1993-1996) concluded as studentscompleted their first year of high school.

Projects SPRING I & II: FindingsAn external evaluation collected data on students academicperformance when students completed 5 th or 6th grade. WhileSPRING students (that is, rural ,economically disadvantagedstudents identified as gifted using comprehensiveidentification measures) performed significantly lower bothbefore and after identification and intervention thantraditionally identified gifted students in the same schoolsystem on standardized aptitude tests, achievement tests, andverbal creativity tests, they did not differ from them oncreative writing or the nonverbal creativity tests.

Identification and Intervention for Rural, Low-income, Gifted Students:A Follow-up Study

Shirley Aamidor, Ph.D.Indiana University [email protected]

Gifted Children Volume 2 Number 1 Fall 2007 Pag


3/17

Additionally, SPRING students did not differ fromtraditionally identified gifted students on measures of self-concept either before or after the SPRING intervention.

A second external evaluation carried out when SPRINGstudents were in the 8 th or 9 th grade showed standardizedachievement and intelligence scores for SPRING studentsgenerally dropped relative to age or grade norms duringSPRING II, falling closer to the national or state mean on thetests. Overall gains in self-concept were statistically significantfrom the pretest at 4 th grade to the posttest at the end of 8 th

grade.While the results of these external evaluations suggestpossible identification procedures to increase therepresentation of economically disadvantaged rural studentsin gifted programs, they also raise questions about the extentto which comprehensive identification correctly identifiesgifted and talented, economically disadvantaged, ruralstudents and the long-term effects of such identification.

Objectives

The goal of the current study is to identify factors whichmight influence the long-term effects of alternativeidentification and curriculum interventions with economically

disadvantaged, rural, gifted students. More specifically, theobjectives of the study are: (1) to determine if, at the end ofhigh school, the academic achievements, self-concepts, andaspirations of students alternatively identified as gifted(SPRING) differ from students identified by more traditionalapproaches (GT) and from students never identified as gifted(Non- GT); (2) to identify factors which may influenceindividual differences in outcomes (achievement, self-concept,and aspirations) for students identified by these differentapproaches. The findings of this study have the potential toprovide information of value to other efforts to providealternative identification and intervention approaches, as wellas attempts to assess such programs.

MethodologyThe researcher met with all students in the 10 th and 11 th grades during their English classes at the two high schools inthe SPRING participating districts, and explained that thepurpose of the study was to gain information about theacademic differences and differences in career ambitions ofstudents who reside in rural communities.

Data Collection

Data collection with students at each school took place on thesame day. All students were able to complete the assessmentswithin the specified time. The researcher also collectedcumulative records information on students participating in

the study. Data were recorded on grades, science and mathcourses taken, class rank, diploma type received, as well asscores for the PSAT and the SAT.

Pre-test data on self-concept, academic achievement testscores, cognitive skills index, and anecdotal and descriptivedata were retrieved from Project SPRING I files.

Subjects

There were 28 Project SPRING students, 25 traditionallyidentified gifted students (GT) and 53 regular students(NonGT).

Over two-thirds of subjects (71.6 percent) were female (Spring68%; GT 60%; NonGT 80%).

Instruments

Piers-Harris Self-Concept Scale for Children

The Piers-Harris Childrens Self-Concept Scale (Piers &Harris, 1969) is a published self-report questionnairedeveloped for students in grades 4 through 12. There are sixcluster scales, each yielding a score; Behavior (16 items),Intellectual and School Status (17 items), Physical Appearance

and Attributes (13 items), Anxiety (14 items), Popularity (12items), Happiness and Satisfaction (10 items), plus a totalscore. Only the total scores were used in the data analyses.The Piers-Harris Childrens Self-Concept Scale was usedagain for this study because it had been utilized in SPRING Iwhen students were in 4 th grade, thus providing for a pre-and post- (11 th grade) assessment of self-concept.

IDEAS (Interest Determination, Exploration and Assessment System)

The IDEAS assessment (Johansson, 1996) is a short, self-scoredinterest inventory designed to be used as an introduction tocareer exploration for students and adults. The IDEASinventory is used with junior high, middle school, and earlyhigh school students in conjunction with career programs andguidance units in social studies courses.

Indiana Statewide Testing for Education Progress-Plus

The Indiana Statewide Testing for Educational Progress-Plus(ISTEP+) (Indiana Department of Education, 2000-2001) isadministered to all Indiana public school students in grades 3through 10. In this study, scores from grade 3 served as acontrol measure and grade10 as the dependent variable. Totalbattery scores were used for the data analyses.

Test of Cognitive Skills

The Test of Cognitive Skills (1985) is a group intelligence test

used to measure the abilities needed to acquire the desiredcognitive outcomes of formal education. The test has a meanof 100 and a standard deviation of 16. The score indicates astudents overall cognitive ability, or academic aptitude,relative to students of similar chronological age withoutregard to grade placement.

High School Diploma

Indiana awards three diplomas to those graduating highschool. The type of diploma depends upon the academicprogram of each student.

Academic Honors Diploma. To receive an AcademicHonors Diploma, one must have an overall B grade

point average and earn 47 credits (nine more than whatis needed for the regular diploma and seven creditsmore than a Core 40 diploma) with a grade of C orbetter.

Indiana Core 40. Core 40 is a single, flexible, high schoolcurriculum, which, except for elective courses, uses asingle set of agreed-upon competencies. Thesecompetencies direct the content of both college prep andtech prep courses.

General Diploma. Thirty-eight credits are necessary tosatisfy the general diploma requirement.



4/17

Preliminary Scholastic Assessment Test

The Preliminary Scholastic Assessment Test (PSAT) ispublished by The College Board as a tenth or eleventh gradepractice instrument for students taking the ScholasticAssessment Test (SAT) in the eleventh and twelfth grades.

Scholastic Assessment Test

The Scholastic Assessment Test (SAT) is designed to measureverbal and quantitative reasoning skills. SAT scores primarilyhelp forecast the college academic performance of individual

students. The composite SAT score (verbal + math) was usedfor data analyses.

Math and Science Courses Completed

The number of math/science courses taken during highschool is a substantive indicator of college plans/intention forhigher education, and professional goals for the future. Thesemeasures were compared across the three groups to identifyquantitative differences and confirm other data.

Research Questions

1. (a) Are the educational achievements of SPRINGstudents different from GT students and NonGTstudents as they complete high school?

(b) Do these differences occur when initialachievement differences are controlled?

2. Are the academic and career aspirations (as indicatedby the number of math and science courses studentscompleted) of SPRING students different from GTstudents and NonGT students as they complete highschool?

3. (a) Is the self-concept of SPRING students differentfrom GT students and NonGT students at the 11 th grade?

(b) Do these differences occur when controlled for

initial differences in self-concept?(c) Are differences among groups influenced by

gender and school attended?

Summary of Findings

Achievement and ability. Results showed that traditional GTstudents surpassed SPRING students and NonGT students onall academic and ability outcome measures. When controllingfor initial achievement, these differences were maintained atabout the same level of significance in favor of the GT groupbut accounted for a smaller proportion of variance.

Academic and career aspirations. SPRING and NonGT studentswere found to take fewer math and science courses than theGT students, even controlling for initial achievement.However, while a significantly higher percentage of GT thanSPRING students took college entrance exams and went on tocollege, significant differences were not found between GTand NonGT students on these measures. When careerinterests were assessed, the three groups did not differ on theInvestigative Theme. However, when gender was controlled,SPRING students scored significantly higher than GTstudents did on the Realistic Theme.

Self-concept outcomes.There was a significant interactionbetween the two high schools and identification for self-

concept. SPRING students enrolled in School A hadsignificantly higher total self-concept scores than both GT andNonGT students, whereas, at School B, GT and SPRINGstudents had significantly higher total self-concept scores thanNonGT students. No similar interactions existed on pretestself-concept scores. When the six individual self-conceptclusters were analyzed using a two-way ANOVA (school,identification), significant interactions were found on four ofthe clusters. In all cases, GT students scored much higher inSchool B than School A. SPRING students scored high in bothschools, NonGT students scored especially low in School B.

Self-concept as predictor . When pretest self-concept was used topredict high school academic achievement and abilityoutcomes and career aspirations, no significant correlationswere found.

Conclusions

This study was a follow-up of students who were identified inthe fourth grade as potentially gifted (Project SPRING) usingcomprehensive assessments. While curriculum interventionsoccurred in the elementary school, and continued in onecontent area through the first year of high school, this earlyand intermediate intervention was not consistentlyimplemented. To effect a positive change in the academicachievement and aspiration outcomes of rural, economicallydisadvantaged, gifted children, the findings of this studywould suggest that when alternative identification isemployed, the curriculum intervention must be sufficientlychallenging and consistently implemented to mediatebetween the expectations of school and the childs earlyexperiences.

Rural students in general, but in particular rural, potentiallygifted students from economically disadvantagedbackgrounds, represent a unique population. On the onehand, they may have the same academic and professionalaspirations as their more advantaged peers; on the otherhand, they lack the economic resources, social capital, andparental support to realize their goals. The transitions fromelementary school to middle school and middle school to highschool can be crucial times for these students as theytransition to a more academically rigorous program.

Factors which may promote higher achievement outcomes forrural, gifted, low socioeconomic students include:

A. Providing parents and students with information onappropriate coursework to take to prepare for college, aswell as actively counseling students and parents.

B. Monitoring a students academic progress and offeringadditional tutoring where necessary.

C. Maintaining regular contact with parents regardingacademic coursework and taking college entrance exams.

D. Screening for students who qualify for state-sponsoredscholarship programs, and assisting them and theirparents as they complete the necessary qualifying forms.

E. Developing and making available a simple checklist anddeadline of what students ought to do and when, i.e.,register for PSAT and SAT, take appropriate courses,apply for financial aid.



5/17

F. Fostering and supporting local professional adults who arein a position to mentor the economically disadvantagedgifted student.

Developing appropriate and varied identification procedureswhich are sensitive to the expression of giftedness in ruralpopulations from the different racial, ethnic, or culturalgroups is essential. This requires knowing the norms, values,

and community resources before embarking on determiningwhich techniques or strategies of identification are the mostefficacious. Such studies would be useful by laying thegroundwork for future, more specific research. As shown inthis study, the complexity of changing identification strategiesand curriculum interventions for non-traditional giftedgroups is more difficult, requiring further theoretical analysesand follow-up.

References

Bernal, E.M. (1979). The education of the culturally different gifted. In A.H. Passow (Ed.), The gifted and the talented (pp. 395-400). Chicago:National Society for the Study of Education.

Duncan, C.M., & Sweet, S. (1992). Introduction: Poverty in rural America. In C. M. Duncan (Ed.), Rural poverty in America (pp. xix-xxvii).New York: Auburn House.

Ford, D.Y., Grantham, T.C., & Harris, J.J. (1996). Gifted education across cultures. Multicultural gifted education: A wakeup call to theprofession. Roeper Review, 19(2), 72-78.

Frasier, M.M. (1987). The identification of gifted black students: Developing new perspectives. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 10, 155-189.

Indiana Department of Education. (2000-2001). Indiana Statewide Testing for Educational Progress (ISTEP): Program Manual Indianapolis, IN:Indiana Department of Education.

Johansson, C.B. (1996). Career assessment inventory - The enhanced version. Minneapolis, MN: National Computer Systems. Ci ted in C.B. Johansson, (1996), IDEAS: Interest Determination, Exploration and Assessment System Manual. Minneapolis, MN: National ComputerSystems, Inc.

Johansson, C.B. (1996). IDEAS: Interest Determination, Exploration and Assessment System Manual . Minneapolis, MN: National ComputerSystems, Inc.

Maker, C.J. (Ed.). (1986). Critical issues in gifted education: Defensible programs for the gifted.Austin, TX: PRO-ED.

National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). National Educational Longitudinal Study of 1988 (NELS). Washington, DC: Author.

Piers, E.V. (1984). Piers-Harris Childrens Self-concept Scale: Revised manual. Los Angeles, CA: Western Psychological Services.

Spicker, H.H., Breard, N., & Reyes, E.I. (1996). Final Report Project SPRING II Special Populations Rural Information Network for the Gifted.(USDOE No. R206A20011). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

Spicker, H.H. (1993). Final Report Project SPRING Special Populations Rural Information Network for the Gifted (USDOE No. R206A00169).

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.Tonemah, S. (1987). Assessing American Indian gifted and talented students abilities. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 10(3), 181-194.


CONGRATULATIONS JOAN FREEMAN!

We are delighted to announce that Joan Freeman has been honored withThe Lifetime AchievementAward for 2007 from the British Psychological Society

This is an extraordinary honor in many ways, not least because Joans field of endethe promotion of gifts and talents, is not a priority for the society.

The award is to be presented formally at a gala dinner in Dublin in April 2008.


6/17

For the past several years I have been engaged in advocacyefforts on behalf of gifted students at the national, state, andlocal level. As the co-chair of the advocacy committee of mystate gifted association, I have spent much of my timespeaking to groups outside of gifted education about giftededucation. Most educators and researchers who are interestedin gifted children have a personal investment in the field andits success. However, we must persuade policymakers whoare not in the field that investment in gifted education isimportant. Assuming that economic development is theprimary education outcome of interest to governments at alllevels, how can we make the argument that gifted educationmakes an economic difference, and what data can we employto strengthen that argument?

These questions guided my search for information as Iconsulted the literature in gifted education, documents fromnational think tanks from a variety of political perspectives,Web sites of international entities such as the World Bank andthe European Union, and books on the economics ofeducation. I questioned colleagues on this topic throughvarious listservs, and I asked all the economists of myacquaintance what kinds of outcome variables are generallymeasured in research on the economic effects of education. Iwas seeking both the rhetoric of persuasive economicarguments for gifted and regular education, and someempirical research outcomes.

The results of my search were presented in preliminary format the 2007 World Conference for Gifted and TalentedChildren at The University of Warwick (Clinkenbeard, 2007).Initially I had intended to present comparisons betweennations, but as my research progressed it became clear thatthe same general human capital arguments were beingmade in most of the countries and international organizationsI investigated (at least in the English language sources I wasreading). Following are a brief discussion of these argumentsfor investing in education in general, some of the typicalindividual and group variables measured in this research, andsuggestions for economic research that might be more directlyrelated to gifted education. It should be noted that mysearches so far have resulted in almost no existing dataspecifically on the economic outcomes of gifted programs,though there are some compelling policy arguments for giftededucation. For empirical outcomes there is a good model tofollow in the research on investment in early childhood.

Human Capital Research and Outcome Variables

As discussed in contemporary economic theory, humancapital denotes differences among individuals that relatedirectly to observable outcomesearnings, health, and evenpolitical participation (Hanushek, 2003, p. ix). The World BankWeb site (www.worldbank.org) refers to human capitalrepeatedly in the context of investing in people and their ability

to be economically productive. Human capital may includeboth intellectual (knowledge and skills) and social (backgroundand networks) capital. According to Becker (2002), over 70% ofthe capital in the U.S. is human (the rest is physical or financialcapital). The general economic argument for education is thatThe economic success of individuals, and also of wholeeconomies, depends on how extensively and effectively peopleinvest in themselves (Becker, 2002, p. 3).

How is this effectiveness measured? In research on theeconomic outcomes of education, there are individual benefitsand group (societal) benefits (Hanushek, 2003). The mosttypical individual outcome variable measured is income:annual salary or lifetime earnings. Individuals who have moreyears of education, or who have received higher qualityeducation, make more money. Other individual variablessuch as greater perceived status and higher academicperformance are sometimes measured, but the discussion isstill often related to greater income. More important foradvocacy purposes are the variables pertaining to societal oraggregate benefits. These typically include higher income taxrevenues and greater Gross Domestic Product (GDP) or othermeasures of economic competitiveness such as productivityper worker (Barro, 2002). Some studies also estimate thesavings in costs related to crime and incarceration (Lynch,2004). Among groups in education, early childhoodresearchers have taken a strong and sustained approach todemonstrating the economic and social benefits of investingin young children (Lynch, 2004). Using some researchmethods from economics, evaluations of well-knownprograms such as Head Start and the Perry Preschool Projecthave estimated the return on investment in early childhooddevelopment programs, particularly for children of poverty.Various programs and researchers have measured orestimated a wide variety of outcome variables related toindividual success and the economy: increases in adultincome, tax revenues, solvency of Social Security, and globalcompetitiveness; and decreases in costs related to specialeducation, crime, and welfare (Lynch, 2004). Similar researchcould be done, but generally has not been conducted, onbehalf of gifted education.

Arguments for Gifted Education

More recent research on the economics of education focusesnot just on years of education, but also the quality ofeducation (Hanushek, 2003). The emphasis on quality is oftenframed in a way that indirectly relates to gifted education: forexample, the recent Tough Choices report (National Centeron Education and the Economy, 2006) uses internationalcomparisons to propose that the majority of U.S. studentscould and should be doing college-level work by age 16.Research on the academic outcomes of higher qualityeducation, such as greater achievement in school and later jobperformance, are generally interpreted as contributing to

Economic Arguments for Gifted Education

Pamela R. Clinkenbeard, Ph.D., Professor of Educational Foundationsat the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater

[email protected]

Gifted Children Volume 2 Number 1 Fall 2007 Page


7/17

global competitiveness in a knowledge economy. Braindrain arguments abound in local, state, and federaldiscussions of economic development.

Although there is little economic data on the impact of giftededucation, there are compelling policy arguments for theeconomic importance of gifted programs and services.Gallagher (2002) has long discussed the opportunity cost ofpublic policy that ignores gifted education. Renzulli (2002)discusses social capital, defined as an awareness and sense ofresponsibility for the world, as an important proposed

outcomeof gifted education. (For a discussion of theintellectual history and educational correlates of socialcapital, see Dika & Singh [2002]). More specifically economicin tone, McCann (2005) uses a natural resource argument indiscussing the Australian governments investigations intothe need to revive gifted education programs. Her discussionincludes an equity argument, based on the need toincorporate the talents of all segments of society in moderneconomies. Moltzen (2003) situates a discussion of improvedgifted education in New Zealand within economic changes tothe country: specifically, to the transformation of a subsidizedagriculture-based economy to a more diversified economybased on innovation and newer specialized skills.

The arguments that have been made for acceleration areperhaps the most explicitly economic. In a discussion ofutilitarian perspectives of giftedness, Tannenbaum (1983)cited Lorges estimate of the savings in man years ofproductivity per year of acceleration, and provided an

estimate of his own based on the federal definition ofgiftedness and the estimated number of gifted students in thecountry. The Templeton report (Colangelo et al., 2004) notesthe economic benefits accruing to various forms ofacceleration: parents save on college tuition throughAdvanced Placement courses, the tax base is increased withmore years of productive work per gifted student, and schoolscan save on education costs. In my World Conferenceaudience, attendees noted that in some countries the costsavings due to the acceleration of students is given back togifted program budgets.

Conclusions

It seems that in order to persuade policymakers of thedesirability of gifted education programs and services, we as afield need to improve our communication regarding theprospective and actual economic benefits of gifted education.Whether polishing our rhetoric or collecting economicoutcome data, in an era of declining support for publiceducation we need to make a clear and compelling case forgifted education to other education groups, to businessleaders, and to governmental entities. Some arenas in whichto make these arguments include forums related to schoolfunding reform and school finance adequacy studies, business

and workforce development roundtables, and conferencesrelated to brain drain, equity and diversity, and economiccompetitiveness. I will be collecting sources and ideas overthe next year and would appreciate any comments orsuggestions regarding this line of inquiry.

References

Barro, R.J. (2002). Education as a determinant of economic growth. In E.P. Lazear (Ed.), Education in the twenty-first century . Stanford, CA:Hoover Institution Press.

Becker, G.S. (2002). The age of human capital. In E.P. Lazear (Ed.), Education in the twenty-first century. Stanford, CA: Hoover InstitutionPress.

Clinkenbeard, P.R. (August 2007). Economic arguments for gifted education: A preliminary global comparison. Paper presented at the biennialconference of the World Council for Gifted and Talented Children, Coventry, UK.

Colangelo, N., Assouline, S.G., & Gross, M.U.M. (2004). A nation deceived: How schools hold back America's brightest students(Vol. 1 & 2).Iowa City, IA: The University of Iowa.

Dika, S.L., & Singh, K. (2002). Applications of social capital in educational literature: A critical synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 72,31-60.

Gallagher, J.J. (2002). Societys role in educating gifted students: The role of public policy.Storrs, CT: The National Research Center on the Giftedand Talented.

Hanushek, E.A. (2003). Understanding the economics of schools: An introduction. In E.A. Hanushek (Ed.), The economics of schooling andschool quality. Vol. 1: Labor markets, distribution and growth. Northampton, MA: Elgar.

Lynch, R.G. (2004). Exceptional returns: Economic, fiscal, and social benefits of investment in early childhood development.Washington, DC:

Economic Policy Institute.McCann, M. (2005). Our greatest natural resource: Gifted education in Australia. Gifted Education International, 19 , 90-106.

Moltzen, R. (2003). Gifted education in New Zealand. Gifted Education International, 18, 139-152.

National Center on Education and the Economy. (2006). Tough choices or tough times: The report of the new commission on the skills of the American workforce.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Renzulli, J.S. (2002). Expanding the conception of giftedness to include co-cognitive traits and to promote social capital. Phi Delta Kappan,84(1), 33-40 & 57-58.

Tannenbaum, A.J. (1983). Gifted children: Psychological and educational perspectives.New York: Macmillan.



8/17

In August 2007, The Gifted Education Resource Institute(GERI) at Purdue University received a three-year, $600,000grant from the Jack Kent Cooke Foundation. GERI willimplement Project HOPE (Having Opportunities PromotesExcellence) in five area school districts in Indianatwo urbanand three ruralto provide students with Saturday andsummer enrichment experiences. Funding will also be used toprovide training to K-5 teachers and counselors on theidentification and counseling needs of lower-income, high-achieving students, as well as parent workshops.

Founded in 1978 to encourage high-ability youth to developtheir talents to the fullest, the Gifted Education ResourceInstitute (GERI) at Purdue University has a long and richhistory of providing successful student programs whichfacilitate academic, career, social, and emotional developmentof high-ability youth. Project HOPE seeks to expandopportunities for culturally diverse and low-income high-potential students by increasing access to GERI enrichmentprograms, providing these children with educationalexperiences similar to those in society who have moreadvantages.

Literature Review

Students with exceptional academic potential who come frompoverty are frequently not identified, are under-identified, orare misidentified for gifted and talented programs. When

identified, they often elect to drop out of programs (Bernal,2007; Ford, 2007; Olszewski-Kubilius, Lee, Ngoi, & Ngoi,2004; Worrell, 2007). African American, Latino/a, NativeAmerican, and children from poverty are 5 to 10 times lesslikely than their White middle-class or affluent counterpartsto be served in talent enrichment or gifted educationprograms (Ford, 1998; Miller, 2004: U.S. Office of Civil Rights,2002). Rural students also face challenges in pursuit of asound education: poverty rates are higher; residents havelower levels of formal education; fewer youth aspire tocollege; smaller tax bases often leave rural schoolsunderfunded and with fewer developmental opportunities;lack of infrastructure and resources results in less technology;and attracting high quality teachers is difficult (Bauch, 2001).

In 2005, Indiana gained the dubious distinction of having thegreatest increase in poverty of any Midwestern state since2000 with a 63% increase (Joint Economic Committee, 2006).Additionally, when compared to other U.S. states, Indianaranks 45 th in the percentage of persons who have completed abachelors degree and 30 th in the percentage of people whohave completed high school (U. S. Census Bureau, 2005). Likethe rest of Indiana, areas within commuting distance ofPurdue University have not only experienced an increase inpoverty levels, but also an increase in diversity of schoolpopulations.

The Grant

Professor Marcia Gentry will serve as Principal Investigator(PI) for Project HOPE, overseeing the entire project, itscontinuation, the assessment, and the research. ProfessorRebecca Mann will serve as co-PI for Project HOPE, focusingon the professional development and student programming.Professor Jean Peterson directs the School CounselingProgram at Purdue University and serves as an associatedfaculty member of GERI. As co-PI she will coordinate thedevelopment-oriented counseling activities for Project HOPE,working with counselors, students, and families.

Research Goals

The following goals will guide Project HOPE:

1. develop procedures for recognizing ability and talentamong low-income children;

2. make it possible for these identified students toparticipate in Super Saturday and Super Summerprograms at Purdue University by offering ProjectHOPE-supplied full-tuition scholarships andtransportation;

3. develop follow-up services for high-potentialparticipants;

4. evaluate effects on students who participate in the

programs and effects on the identification of giftedchildren from low-income families in the targetedschools;

5. develop on-going sources of funding to sustainprogram expansion at the conclusion of the project andto facilitate long-term follow-up and study of ProjectHOPE participants.

We will research the effects of Project HOPE participation onstudent achievement in and attitudes toward theirhome/school experiences. To do this we will gather extantquantitative base-line data on participating students and trackrepeated-measures achievement scores for these students forthe duration of the project. We will also use the My ClassActivities (MCA) (Gentry & Gable, 2001) to determine ifprogram participation affects student attitudes toward schoolon variables that underlie student achievement. Specificallyfor students in all five treatment schools we will collect gradesand ISTEP+ (Indiana Department of Education, 2006) scores.Additionally, four out of the five districts all test children atleast twice a year (fall & spring) using the NWEA (2005). Wewill use these scores to determine program impacts onacademic achievement over time for the participatingstudents. If qualified children exist who elect not toparticipate in the program, we will use these children andtheir scores as a comparison group to help draw inferences

Project HOPE (Having Opportunities Promotes Excellence)Funded by the Jack Kent Cooke Foundation

Jillian C. Gates, Marcia Gentry, Rebecca L. Mann, & Jean S. [email protected] University



9/17

concerning program effects. Finally, analyses will beconducted to address the question of How much out-of-

school enrichment is required to affect student achievementand attitudes?

References

Bauch, P.A. (2001). School-community partnerships in rural schools: Leadership, renewal and a sense of place. Peabody Journal of Education,76(2), 204-221.

Bernal, E.M. (2007). The plight of the culturally diverse student from poverty. In J. VanTassel-Baska & T. Stambaugh (Eds.), Overlooked gems: A national perspective on low-income promising learners(pp. 63-37). Washington, DC: National Association of Gifted Children.

Ford, D.Y. (1998). The under-representation of minority students in gifted education: Problems and promises in recruitment and retention.The Journal of Special Education, 32(1), 4-14.

Ford, D.Y. (2007). Diamonds in the rough: Recognizing and meeting the needs of gifted children from low SES backgrounds. In J.VanTassel-Baska & T. Stambaugh (Eds.), Overlooked gems: A national perspective on low-income promising learners(pp. 63-37).Washington, DC: National Association of Gifted Children.

Gentry, M., & Gable, R.K. (2001). From the students' perspective My Class Activities: An instrument for use in research and evaluation. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 24, 322-343.

Indiana Department of Education. (2006). ISTEP+ program manual. Indianapolis: Indiana Department of Education.

Joint Economic Committee. (2006). Poverty rate unchanged from 2004, but up since 2000. Economic Policy Brief. Washington, DC.

Miller, L.S. (2004). Promoting sustained growth in the representation of African Americans, Latinos, and Native Americans among top students in theUnited States at all levels of the education system (RM04190). Storrs, CT: National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.

Olszewski-Kubilius, P., Lee, S.Y., Ngoi, M., & Ngoi, D. (2004). Addressing the achievement gap between minority and non minoritychildren by increasing access to gifted programs. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 28(2), 127-158.

U.S. Office of Civil Rights. (2002). 2002 elementary and secondary civil rights compliance report. National and state projections. Washington, DC:U.S. Department of Education, Office of Civil Rights

United States Census Bureau. (2005). American Community Survey. Retrieved fromhttp://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/GRTSelectServlet?ds_name=ACS_2005_EST_G00_ May 23, 2007.

Worrell, F.C. (2007). Identifying and including low-income learners in programs for the gifted and talented: Multiple complexities. In J.VanTassel-Baska & T. Stambaugh (Eds.), Overlooked gems: A national perspective on low-income promising learners(pp. 63-37).Washington, DC: National Association of Gifted Children.

And approaching the need for on-going supports from a different angle, Shirley Aamidors article gives us alongitudinal follow-up to a study of gifted education in economically disadvantaged rural settings. Her findingsemphasize the importance of following up with supports for such students; it is not enough to identify them as giftedand put them into programs for high-ability learners. Finally, we have a thoughtfully controversial piece by PamClinkenbeard, raising the issue of economic viability, another topic that we in gifted education have avoided concerningourselves with historically, but that we are going to have to think about if the field is to survive.

Please tell me what you think about all this and more whats interesting, engaging, and controversial in your workwith high-ability learners, and what youre learning or reading or thinking about investigating in your own research.

Finally, I want to say a huge thank you to our layout editor, Leigh Kupersmith. She is one of those people who makes acollaborative effort an enormous pleasure in all our interactions, Ive found her thoughtful, funny, creative, positive,and responsive, all in addition to her finely-honed expertise.

Looking forward to the ongoing dialogue with you all,

Dona Matthews, Ph.D.Visiting Professor,Department of Curriculum, Teaching, and LearningOntario Institute for Studies in Education of the University of [email protected]


Letter from the Editor, continued


10/17

Introduction

In 2000, the National Task Force on Minority HighAchievement published Reaching the Top, a report highlightingthe under-representation of Black and Latino students in thepopulation of highest-achieving students at all levels ofschooling, including in accelerated Advanced Placement (AP)courses and in college, regardless of socioeconomic status.Thisreport highlighted a chronic and long-standing problem(Borland, 2004; Gandara, 2004; Miller, 2004). Because theopportunity to experience college-level challenges while inhigh school confers many long-term benefits to students,ensuring successful participation of all ethnic and racial

groups in AP courses is essential to achieving educationalequity (see Hertberg-Davis, Callahan, & Kyburg, 2006).Recent efforts by the College Board and the FederalGovernment to rectify the problem (see, for example, U.S.Department of Education, 2006) have resulted in a dramaticincrease in the participation of minority students in APcourses, but this increase has not been echoed in thepercentage performing above the generally accepted passingscore of 3 on AP exams (College Board, 2005) a scorewhich has been found to be correlated with later collegeperformance (Dougherty, Mellor, & Jian, 2006; Geiser andSantelices, 2004). While, in 2004, 65% of AP exams taken byWhite students received a score of 3 or higher, only 32% of APexams taken by Black students received a 3 or higher (CollegeBoard, 2005). These findings suggest that AP courses may notprovide the same benefits to Black and Latino students as theyprovide to middle- and upper-middle class White students.Some research indicates that providing Black and Latinostudents with formal supports during high school (e.g., lunchgroups, study groups, and pre-AP courses) contributes toincreased participation and success in AP courses (e.g.,Beitler, 2004; Guthrie & Guthrie, 2001). However, the long-term impact of these support structures on students feelingsof preparedness for and performance within college courseshas not been researched. Furthermore, no studies havefocused on case histories of Black and Latino students whohave been high-achievers in AP and college courses toidentify common factors contributing to their highachievement.

The Study

In an attempt to fill these gaps in the literature, a one-yearstudy is underway at the University of Virginia through agrant from the University of Iowas Belin-Blank Center. Thestudy is exploring the following research questions: To whatextent do formal support structures for minority studentstaking accelerated high school courses impact the success ofthese students within AP courses and, subsequently, in

college? Beyond these support structures, what are commonfactors in the case histories of high-achieving Black and Latinostudents that pave the pathways to academic success in APand college courses?

Methods

Sample and Data Collection: Stage 1. Three high schools withformal structures to support minority participation andsuccess in AP courses (e.g., weekly lunch groups, pre-APprograms, study groups) have been identified (hereaftercalled AP Support Schools), along with three high schoolsthat are similar in student demographics, urbanicity, andschool size to the AP Support Schools, but that do not provideformal AP support (hereafter called No AP SupportSchools).

We are currently in the process of recruiting a sample of 30Black and Latino students who took AP courses, graduatedfrom the six selected high schools, and who are currently intheir second year of college. Five graduates from each APSupport School and each No AP Support School will beselected for further case study. Student selection will bepurposeful to ensure equal representation in each group ofgender, ethnicity, parent education level, and selectiveness ofcollege attended.

All participants will complete a questionnaire containingshort-answer and open-ended questions via SurveyMonkey,an on-line survey tool, probing students experiences andperformance in AP and college courses and feelings ofpreparedness for college. Survey questions were constructedbased on a review of the literature, and the survey has beenfield-tested using a sample of 10 Latino and African Americanformer AP students who are now in their second year ofcollege. Revisions have been made to the survey based uponthe field test results. After the survey is administered,multiple follow-up telephone interviews will be conducted toclarify questions and obtain complete, rich data.

Sample and Data Collection: Stage 2. A sub-sample of students

will be chosen from the larger sample of 30 to develop casehistories of high-achieving Black and Latino students.Students from the larger sample with a history of highachievement in AP courses (score of 4 or 5 on at least one APexam) and college courses (G.P.A. of at least 3.0) will beselected for the sub-sample. Interviews with the sub-sampleof high-achieving students will be more in-depth andexpansive to allow for development of case histories on eachstudent. Interview data for both the larger sample and sub-sample will be collected until data saturation is reached.

Pathways to the Top: Scaffolding Success for Black and Latino Studentsin and Beyond Academically Accelerated High School Environments

Holly Hertberg-Davis, Ph.D.Carolyn Callahan, Ph.D.University of Virginia



11/17

Data Analysis. Qualitative survey and interview data will beanalyzed using the Constant Comparative Method asdescribed in Strauss & Corbin (1998) to determine whether and to what extentsupport structures impact Black andLatino students experiences in AP courses and subsequentfeelings of preparedness for college. Data from each studentwill first be analyzed separately to build rich, descriptive,independent case studies and to probe the uniqueness of eachstudents experience. The case studies of graduates of APSupport Schools will then be examined to determine commonpatterns and themes. Case studies of graduates of No APSupport Schools will be analyzed similarly. Finally, patternsacross groups will be compared for common and uniquethemes. Case histories of the sub-sample of high-achievingstudents will be developed and compared to illuminate

common and unique factors contributing to these studentssuccessful participation in AP courses and subsequent collegeenvironments.

Conclusion

The gap between Black and Latino students and their Whitepeers at the highest levels of academic achievement is aserious and chronic problem. By delineating the specificsupports for and barriers to high-achievement for minoritystudents in our most challenging high school courses andbeyond, we can begin to inform policy and practice asschools, state departments, and the federal governmentdevelop and fund AP programs for minority students.

References Beitler, A. (2004, December). Making this team. Principal Leadership, 5(4), 16-21.

Borland, J.H. (2004). Issues and practices in the identification and education of gifted students from under-represented groups (RM04186). Storrs,CT: The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut.

College Board. (2005). National summary report 2004. Retrieved March 29, 2005, fromhttp://www.collegeboard.com/student/testing/ap/exgrd_sum/2004.html

Dougherty, C., Mellor, L., & Jian, S. (2006). The relationship between Advanced Placement and college graduation. Austin, TX: National Centerfor Educational Accountability.

Gandara, P.C. (2004). Latino achievement: Identifying models that foster success.(RM04194) Storrs, CT: National Research Center on the Giftedand Talented, University of Connecticut.

Geiser, S., & Santelices, V. (2004). The role of Advanced Placement and Honors courses in college admissions. Berkeley: University of California,Berkeley.

Guthrie, L.F., & Guthrie, G.P. (2001). Longitudinal research on AVID, 1999-2000; 2000-2001. Burlingame, CA: Center for Research, Evaluationand Training in Education.

Hertberg-Davis, H., Callahan, C.M., & Kyburg, R.M. (2006). Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate programs: A "fit" for giftedlearners? (RM06222). Storrs, CT: The National Research Center of the Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut.

Miller, L.S. (2004). Promoting sustained growth in the representation of African Americans, Latinos, and Native Americans among top students in theUnited States at all levels of the education system. (RM04190) Storrs, CT: National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented,University of Connecticut.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.

U.S. Department of Education - Press Release (February 6, 2006). Fiscal year 2007 budget request advances NCLB implementation and pinpointscompetitiveness.Accessed on November 10, 2006, from http://www.ed.gov/news/pressreleases/2006/02/02062006.html


CONGRATULATIONS to GRADUATE STUDENTS

J ILIANGATES OF PURDUE UNIVERSITY AND

J ANE J ARVIS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA!

WHO SHARE THE HONOR OF O VERALL BEST S UBMISSION AT THE2ND ANNUAL GRADUATE S TUDENT RESEARCH GALA


12/17

How would Floridas proposed change to a unitary gifted ruleaffect gifted learners who are also classified as limited Englishproficient? Data collected as part of a study now in progressat the University of South Florida in Tampa offers somesobering empirical input on the potential impact of thischange on these traditionally underserved gifted learners.Because Florida is the fourth largest U.S. state in terms of K-12population, changes implemented here may influenceeducational policies in other states.

Floridas current system for identification of gifted learnershas two tracks. Under this current rule, which has been in

effect in its present form since 2002, mainstream studentsmust meet an IQ requirement of 130 or higher. Alternativecriteria are allowed for students who are classified as limitedEnglish proficient (LEP) or who are of low socioeconomicstatus, as indicated by their eligibility for free or reduced-price school lunch. Note that the LEP designation is beingchanged to the less deficit-oriented term English languagelearner, which is preferred; since LEP has been the officialterm used in archival records, I use both terms in this article.

The current gifted rule allows Florida school districts todesign a plan for increasing the number of LEP or low-SESstudents, known informally as Plan B after its heading in thestate rule. Districts choosing to develop Plan B criteria may settheir own IQ cutoff for these two groups of learners, and mayinclude additional elements such as creativity and leadershipthat are not given separate consideration in the criteria usedto identify mainstream gifted learners. Both plan options alsorequire a behavioral checklist of gifted indicators andevidence of need for a special program, but in practice the IQcutoff is often the primary criterion in identification. The textof both the current rule and the proposed revision areavailable online from the Florida Department of State (2006).

The state rule allows districts to develop Plan B procedures,but such plans no longer were mandated when race andethnicity were dropped from Plan B in the 2002 revision of thegifted rule. Currently, 43 of Floridas 67 districts havedeveloped Plan B documents. The remaining districts chosenot to develop a Plan B. At least two of the Plan B documentscurrently in use do not require any minimum IQ score if othercriteria are met, while the remainder require minimum IQscores ranging from 110 to 118 (along with other evidence) toqualify a low income or LEP learner for gifted services.

The proposed rule revision would identify learners for giftedprograms using IQ scores on a sliding scale together withscores from the Florida Comprehensive Achievement Test(FCAT), the states NCLB achievement test. Under therevision, students with IQ scores at or above 130 would alsobe required to demonstrate high performance on a

standardized achievement test; this could be either a 4 or 5 onthe reading or math score of the FCAT, or a reading or mathscore at the 85th percentile or higher on any nationally-normed test. This change represents a departure from currentpractice that likely will preclude the identification ofunderachieving gifted learners. A five on the FCAT in eitherreading or math would be required for students whose IQscores fell between 120 and 130, and no IQ score below 120would qualify for gifted services.

There are some theoretical problems with using achievementtest results to determine giftedness. We know that gifted

students from disadvantaged backgrounds are bestidentified early-on, as waiting until higher grades riskslosing these learners as more-advantaged peers show greateracademic growth. Furthermore, the ceiling on standardizedgrade-level tests may not be high enough to identify giftedlearners. This is particularly a problem on state-level tests,some of which appear to be getting easier every year (seeMatthews, 2006). Furthermore, the standardized testingmandated by NCLB begins at third grade, potentiallyleaving out students in grades K-2. The proposed gifted ruleaddresses this by allowing an above-average score on aresearch-based reading assessment (Florida Department ofState, 2006, 3.a.2). The proportion of English languagelearners who would meet this criterion is unclear, but high

English reading ability would likely have kept a studentfrom being designated LEP in the first place.

For students who are learning the English language in school,perhaps a more serious problem lies in the heavy languagedemands that standardized achievement tests present. Floridalaw recognizes this by allowing the LEP committee to exemptstudents whose LEP classification date falls within one year ofthe FCAT testing. We know that whether or not a personspeaks English has little bearing on their intelligence, and wealso know that LEP students who are tested are unlikely toachieve the high levels of FCAT performance that theproposed gifted rule would ask of them. A quick look at the2007 FCAT results (see

http://www.fcatresults.com/demog/GetReport.aspx)confirms this suspicion; while 8 percent of third and fourthgraders statewide scored in the highest of the five FCATproficiency levels in reading, just one percent of Englishlanguage learners obtained scores in this category. In grades6-11, zero percent of English language learners statewide hadscores in achievement level five, while between two andeleven percent of all students fell into this highest category inreading achievement. This suggests that all English languagelearners in grades 6 and higher could only be identified asgifted if their IQ score was in the 130+ range, and only then ifthey made a 4 on the FCAT assessment.

Michael S. Matthews, Ph.D.Gifted Education Program, Department of Special EducationThe University of South [email protected]

Assessing the Impact of a Proposed Rule Change on the Identification of GiftedEnglish Language Learners



13/17

Not having access to FCAT scores at the student level, I wascurious to examine the question from another perspective.What would the impact of raising the IQ score to a minimumof 120 have on the population of English language learnersdetermined eligible for gifted services? Table 1 shows thedistribution of IQ scores for a population of elementary LEPstudents (N = 432) who were referred for possible placementin the gifted program. Each of these students had obtained ascore of at least 120 on a screening test, most commonly the K-BIT II, before being referred for an individual evaluation bythe school psychologist.

Table 1. IQ score distribution for LEP studentsreferred for possible gifted program placement

IQ Score Range N %

104 28 6.5

105-109 23 5.3

110-114 25 5.8

115-119 124 28.7

120-124 82 19.0

125-129 58 13.4

130-134 57 13.2

135+ 35 8.1

Note: Population mean = 121.1

There are several interesting things here. First, a criticismsometimes expressed by teachers in Florida schools is thatstudents identified under Plan B criteria somehow do notreally belong in the gifted program. As these data make clear,one in four of the students now identified under Plan B wouldalso be eligible under the 130 IQ standard applied tomainstream gifted learners.

Second, the majority of these students scores fall in the rangeof 115-119. This is probably consistent with some regression tothe mean, which might be expected given the IQ 120

screening cutoff that was in use when these scores werecollected. Since three quarters of those screened met the IQ115 criterion for gifted program entry used in this districtsPlan B, the screening score could probably be set a bit lower toincrease the number of LEP students referred for giftedevaluation without substantially increasing the proportiontested who do not meet the 115+ placement criterion.

The same evidence suggests that implementing a statewiderequirement for a minimum IQ score of 120 for all learnerswould substantially reduce the number of English language

learners found eligible for gifted programs in Florida. Morethan one third (34.8%) of the English language learnerscurrently eligible for gifted services would no longer beconsidered gifted under the new proposed rule. When oneconsiders that an FCAT score of 5 would be required for the120 minimum score to apply, and that an extremely lowproportion of ELL students achieve a score in this range, itbecomes apparent that we would miss many more giftedEnglish language learners if the new criteria were adopted; aloss of half or even three quarters of the current population ofthese diverse gifted learners would be likely. More than 250individuals in this one district alone might no longer qualifyfor gifted services, representing a loss of dozens of homelanguages and myriad diverse perspectives. The loss of thesestudents would not only harm their educational achievement;it also would diminish the experiences of mainstream giftedlearners, who would no longer be exposed to the perspectivesthese English language learners bring as peers in their giftedclasses.

We all would like to be able to think that importanteducational decisions are made only after careful empiricalstudy of the complex implications of these issues. However,the reality often is different; politically motivated changesoften trump those based on reasoned analysis. As researchersin gifted education, we have a responsibility to publicize ourwork to the larger audience of legislators, district personnel,and state education agencies whose decisions affecteducation, and through education, our larger society.

References

Florida Department of State. (2006). Rule: 6A-6.03019: Special instructional programs for students who are gifted. Florida AdministrativeWeekly and Florida Administrative Code [online edition]. Tallahassee, FL: Author. Retrieved October 24, 2007, fromhttps://www.flrules.org/gateway/ruleNo.asp?ID=6A-6.03019

Matthews, M.S. (2006). Benefits and drawbacks of state-level assessments for gifted students: NCLB and standardized testing. Duke GiftedLetter, 7 (1) [electronic version]. Retrieved October 24, 2007, from http://www.dukegiftedletter.com/articles/vol7no1_tt.html

Data collection for this study was supported by a New Researcher Grant awarded by the University of South Florida. Technical assistance provided by school district staff is also gratefully acknowledged.



14/17

Differentiation is the contemporary buzzword incurriculum and instruction, but the reality is that mostteachers simply do not have the time necessary to do it well,especially when it comes to finding advanced-level resourcesfor gifted students. Remarkable advances in instructionalcommunication technology (ICT) have now made is possibleto provide high levels of enrichment services to students whohave access to a computer and the Internet. The RenzulliLearning System (RLS) is an Internet-based enrichmentprogram that is built on a high-end learning theory thatfocuses on the development of creative productivity throughthe application of knowledge rather than the mere acquisitionand storage of knowledge. The system, which is sponsored bythe University of Connecticut Research and Development

Corporation, is based on more than 30 years of researchdealing with student strength assessment and advanced-levellearning guided by the Enrichment Triad Model (Renzulli,1977).

The Renzulli Learning System goes beyond the popularworksheets-on-line or courses-on-line that, by and large,have been early applications of ICT in most school situations.These early applications have been based on the samepedagogy that is regularly practiced in most traditionalteaching situations, thereby minimizing the role of theInternet to a gigantic encyclopedia rather than a source ofinformation for first-hand investigative and creativeendeavors.

The Renzulli Learning System is a comprehensive programthat begins by providing a computer-generated profile of eachstudents academic strengths, interests, learning styles, andpreferred modes of expression. A search engine then matchesInternet resources to the students profile from fourteencarefully screened databases that are categorized by subjectarea, grade level, state curricular standards, and degree ofcomplexity. A management system called the Wizard ProjectMaker guides students in the application of knowledge toteacher- or student-selected assignments, independent

research studies, or creative projects that individuals or smallgroups would like to pursue. Students and teachers canevaluate the quality of students products using a rubriccalled The Student Product Assessment Form. Students canrate each site visited, conduct a self-assessment of what theyhave gained from the site, and place resources in their ownTotal Talent Portfolio for future use. RLS also includes acurriculum acceleration management system for high-achieving students that is based on the many years of researchand widespread use of a curricular modification processcalled Curriculum Compacting. Students and teachers canuse the RLS anytime and anywhere there is Internet access.

Teacher functions allow downloading of hundreds ofreproducible creativity and critical thinking activities as wellas numerous off-line resources for lesson planning andcurricular integration. Management functions allow teachersto group students by interests and learning styles. Themanagement tools also allow teachers to place teacher-selected resources in individual, whole class, or selectedstudents portfolios for classroom or special project use.Teachers can oversee all students activity including whereand when students have been on-line using the RLS, projectsor assignments underway or completed, and areas wherecurriculum has been compacted. The system can be used athome and during summer, and parents can view their ownson or daughters work on the system. The principal ordesignated project manager can also examine all activitytaking place in a given building or program. This featureallows for accountability, system assessment, and guidance instaff development and program planning needs.

Persons interested in examining the Renzulli Learning Systemcan tour the Web site at www.renzullilearning.com andfurther descriptive information can be obtained [email protected]. The RLS is being widely used byschool systems throughout the U.S. and in other countries. Ahome-school and individual use version will be available in2008.

Reference Renzulli, J. S. (1977). The Enrichment Triad Model: A guide for developing defensible programs for the gifted and talented. Mansfield Center, CT:

Creative Learning Press.

A Technology Based Resource for Challenging Gifted and Talented Students

Joseph S. RenzulliSally M. ReisThe University of Connecticut



15/17

Ever heard of Indigo children? No? Well, they are super-duper, over-the-top, gifted and talented children. They are anevolution in childhood, largely restricted to the USA, whichstarted sometime around the recent millenniumand havenever before been documented! It is easy to pour scorn on theideas expounded in this book edited by many Ph.D.s andfamous authors of bestselling books (hmm). The chapters areextremely short and do not tax the brain cells unduly. Butthere is hardly a page which has not caused me at least oneraised eyebrow.

Typical behaviour of an Indigo child is as follows: My wifeand I tell Nicholas aged two that we love him. Sometimeshell tell us that he loves us back, but more often Nicholas willagree with us, I love me too. Signed by a dad (p.107).Identification is also relatively simple if you are sensitive: youcan just look into their eyes and see what old souls they have.

Fortunately, the authors with their very fine minds provideadvice on how to help these system buster children. One ofthe Ph.D.s says, for example, Ive learned from myconversations with God and the angels to take excellent careof our bodies. And much more (p.138). Not for vanity, sheinsists, but to make us more receptive to divine guidance.

What would she have done without that angelic advice? Wealso learn that directing children is OK for God but not forparents. They must never direct their progeny because thechildren know from birth who they are and where they aregoing. It is perfectly all right to guide them gently, butbecause the children are smarter than you are you will onlybe causing them much frustration and distorting their healthydevelopment if you instruct them. This advice is quitespecific. Never ever, for example, expect them to join thefamily business.

Schools which can cope with Indigos are to be found all overthe world, where for example, Students are honored, not thesystem. The Montessori system is one such. I imagine thatMaria, that down-to-earth doctor, would be a stout opponentof the idea that the little ones under her system would betaught how to be super-duper gifteds. But in the end, what isgoing on in her name is not actually the Montessori Method.

There are sad chapters by people on the hardships of growingup Indigo. It seems that other cruder folk just dont give the

Indigo child the understanding and love they crave. The bookprovides advice on how to distinguish Indigo from ADHD,and how to sort out problems without Ritalin, which is nowlavishly prescribed across the Western World. In America, it isestimated that between the ages of 5-19, 1 in 30 has aprescription for Ritalin. But then, so many report this drug asgiving them peace and opening windows in their mental lifeone would not wish to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

The book in no way convinced me that there is a brand newversion of a child called an Indigo. I did wonder, though,about what makes the many authors tick. The examples givenare typical of bright and lively children experimenting inmaking sense of the world. Love is strongly promoted, but if

you believe that these children have a divine origin andmission, you may be inclined to stand back in awe. But then,as another of the Ph.D.s writes: being alive is all aboutgaining experience, there are no wrong choices since weacquire wisdom no matter what we choose. Candide, likeElvis, is alive. It seems to me, though, that bright healthychildren need more than love, freedom, and honor. Theyneed clear structure and help in their growing up to providethem with peace and happiness, and indeed success in life.Children need parenting.

The Indigo Children: The New Kids Have ArrivedLee Carroll and Jan Tober (Eds.)Hay House Inc., California

Review by Joan FreemanMiddlesex University, London, UKwww.joanfreeman.com

Book Review



16/17

Purpose The Research on Giftedness and Talent (RGT) Special Interest Group of the American Educational Research Association(AERA) deals with research studies that focus on how giftedness and talent are developed and nurtured. The SIGencourages both international and national studies involving qualitative and or quantitative methods in a wide varietyof topics: Conceptions, Models, Identification, Programs and Practices, Counseling, Creativity, Thinking Skills,

Disabilities, Parenting, and Diversity.Dues:$10 (1 yr.) / $20 (2 yrs.) / Free for Graduate Students For more information, or to join theSIG: http://www.aeragifted.org/ For information on theAERA Annual meeting:http://www.aera.net/meeting

The 54th Annual Meeting of the National Association for Gifted Children was held November 7-11 th in Minneapolis. Ourgracious host volunteers proudly donned yellow fleece vests serving the dual purposes of identifying them as people whocould help as well as protecting them from the snow flurries that greeted conference attendees on Friday morning. Withthemes such as 10,000 Ideas in the Land of 10,000 Lakes! and Igniting Ideas & Innovations in Gifted, this years conferencefeatured 350 breakout sessions ranging from the Neuroscience of Creativity and a discussion of online teacher education tothe 2nd Annual Graduate Student Research Gala. Graduate students Jillian Gates of Purdue University and Jane Jarvis fromthe University of Virginia shared the honor of overall best submission for the gala.

The opening session and Saturday keynote address, given by Dean Keith Simonton and Robert Sternberg, respectively,packed the house and were extremely well received. Moreover, NAGC President Del Siegle jokingly announced that hehad figured out how to get everyone to stay at the conference through noon on Sunday: schedule Minnesota favorite son

Garrison Keillor as the closing speaker. Keillor, who was clearly a crowd favorite, told his audience that he initially thoughthe was speaking to the National Association of Gifted Children and planned to give an address on humility. Although hehumbly claimed to know nothing about giftedness or gifted research, he urged his listeners not to overlook the importanceof praising student dedication and hard work. Clearly Mr. Keillor does know a thing or two about educating students.

Attendance on Sunday was not limited to those yearning to return to Lake Woebegone. A standing room only audienceattended a whirlwind session providing an update on all the research conducted in the last five years by the NationalResearch Center on the Gifted and Talented given by Joe Renzulli, Sally Reis, Jean Gubbins, and Carolyn Callahan.

In 2008, NAGC will be held in Tampa, Florida, from October 30 th through November 2 nd.

About the AERA RGT SIG

NAGC 2007


Matthew Makel, Indiana University

CONGRATULATIONS JANE PIIRTO !

We are delighted to announce that Jane Piirto has been honored with theMensa Lifetime AchievementAward

for her work with gifted students and with teachersand for her model that is recognized nationally and internationally.

A special issue of theMensa Research Journal will be devoted to seven of her scholarly articles in early 2008


17/17

GIFTED CHILDRENAn Electronic Journal of the AERA SIG Research on Giftedness and Talent.

AERA Special Interest Groups Web Site:http://www.aeragifted.org/

AERA SIGResearch on Giftedness and TalentOfficers

ChairMichael Pyryt

[email protected] (June 2006 -June 2008)

Chair ElectKaren [email protected] (June 2006-June 2008)

SecretaryMarcia Gentry

[email protected] (Term ends June 2008)

TreasurerCatherine Brighton

[email protected] (Term ends June 2008)

Program ChairCarol Tieso (June 2007-June 2008)

[email protected]

Assistant Program ChairDona Matthews (becomes program chair 2008-09)

[email protected]

Members-at-LargeCatherine Little (Term ends June 2008)

[email protected] Matthews (Term ends June 2008)

[email protected] Lohman (Term ends June 2009)

[email protected] Jane Piirto (Term ends June 2009)

[email protected]

Student Representative Bronwyn MacFarlane (June 2006-June 2008)

[email protected]

Newsletter Editor Jill Adelson (Term ends June 2009)

[email protected]

WebmasterD. Betsy McCoach

[email protected] (June 2007-June 2008)

Past-ChairCarolyn Callahan (June 2006-June 2008)

[email protected]

AERA SIGResearch on Giftedness and TalentWorking Committees

Constitutional Review CommitteeTarek Grantham ([email protected])Tonya Moon ([email protected])Mary Rizza ([email protected])

Membership CommitteeCarol Tieso ([email protected])Betsy McCoach ( [email protected])Bonnie Cramond ([email protected])Susannah Richards ([email protected])

William Bart ([email protected]) Jean Gubbins ([email protected])

Program Planning CommitteeCarol Tieso ([email protected])Cheryll Adams ([email protected])Dona Matthews ([email protected])

Awards CommitteeCatherine Brighton ([email protected])Cheryll Adams ([email protected])Frank Worrell ([email protected])Michael Matthews ([email protected])

Business Meeting CommitteeBetsy McCoach ([email protected])Marcia Gentry ([email protected])

Publication CommitteeDel Siegle ([email protected])

Jonathan Plucker ([email protected])

Dona Matthews ([email protected])

Documents

Gifted Children V2N1