Issue Focus: Identification - Our Gifted

Spring, 2003 Volume 15, Issue 3

Online www.our-gifted.com

P.O. Box 18268, Boulder, Colorado 80308303 444-7020 - 800 494-6178 / Fax 303 545-6505

[email protected]

IdentificationIssue Focus:

pen Space Communications

Understanding Our Gifted, Spring 2003 1

Iden

tific

atio

n

ContentsBetween the Lines...2• Publisher’s Perspective

Dorothy Knopper

FeaturesHigh Achiever, Gifted Learner, Creative Thinker...3

• Don’t confuse the definition of a gifted learner with other types of learnersBertie Kingore

Child-Centered Identification and the Hidden Child...6• All gifted children do not fit into neat little categories

Carole Ruth Harris

G/T Identification and Sci-Fi Matchmaking: More Similar Than They Should Be...10• Looking beyond test scores

Mary M. Bartek

Gifted or Not Gifted–Is That the Question?...12• Traditional identification techniques may be causing us to miss certain children

Susan Hansford

GATEway Project...16• Opening up gifted education to underrepresented groups

Jacquelin Medina & Wendy Joffe

It’s a Fit: Collaboration and Gifted Education...18• The benefits of team planning and teaching

Julie Milligan & Dennis Campbell

ColumnsMusings: Giftedness, Labeling, and the Non-Therapeutic Dose...22

• The importance of measuring the extent and type of giftednessMiraca U.M. Gross

The Affective Side: Gifted Identification and the Call to Advocacy..24• Knowing when and how to appropriately respond to your unhappy

or distressed gifted childJean Strop

Surfing the Net: Identification Tools...27• Some of the confusing aspects of identification

Sandra Berger

ParentSpace: Counseling the Gifted–Whose Job Is It?...31Sharon A. Freitas

Hot Off the Press...32• Recently Published Books

2 www.openspacecomm.com Understanding Our Gifted, Spring 2003

Between the Lines

Publisher’s Perspective

Dorothy Knopper

Identification plans have been tossed around the gifted educationfield forever––or so it seems. But how many school districts todayhave an appropriate plan of identification in place for gifted kids?

Nearly a century ago, Leta Stetter Hollingworth, later known as the“mother of gifted education,” asked, “Can American public schoolsidentify and recognize gifted children and make provisions for theireducation?” (2002, Klein, A. A Forgotten Voice. Great Potential Press).

And now in 2003, we still ask, “Should we identify students to fit intopredetermined programs, or should we identify students and thendetermine their needs?”

If I ran the world (or at least the world of education), I would elimi-nate all labels that are now placed on children. With the help of par-ents, teachers, and the children themselves, I would emphasizeknowing and understanding each child, her abilities and needs, andher strengths and weaknesses. Sure, this would take lots of time andmoney, and it’s probably impractical....but I wish, at least before welabel a child with a broad category that may or may not fit, we couldthink about who that child is and what should happen for him andhelp him to understand himself.

Identification means so many different things to those of us who liveand work with gifted children. As always, we value a variety of per-spectives from our writers. You, the reader, can decide what youbelieve and what you’d like to see happen in our schools. Let usknow your opinion. Contact editor Carol Fertig at [email protected].


Identification of gifted students is clouded when concerned adultsmisinterpret high achievement as giftedness. High-achieving stu-dents are noticed for their on-time, neat, well-developed, and correctlearning products. Adults comment on these students’ consistenthigh grades and note how well they acclimate to class proceduresand discussions. Some adults assume these students are giftedbecause their school-appropriate behaviors and products surfaceabove the typical responses of grade-level students.

Educators with expertise in gifted education are frustrated trying tohelp other educators and parents understand that, while highachievers are valuable participants whose high-level modeling iswelcomed in classes, they learn differently from gifted learners. Insituations in which they are respected and encouraged, gifted stu-dents’ thinking is more complex with abstract inferences and morediverse perceptions than is typical of high achievers. Articulatingthose differences to educators and parents can be difficult.

In 1989, Szabos published a comparison of the bright child and thegifted learner. Her comparison helps to delineate differencesbetween the two groups and provides a useful format for discus-sions. However, some of the items listed in the comparison are ques-tionable. For example, the gifted learner is credited with havingwild, silly ideas. In reality, it is creative thinkers who exhibit theideas often called wild or silly; not all gifted learners demonstratethat aspect of the creative process. As a second example of concern,Szabos lists bright children as enjoying straightforward, sequentialpresentations. This behavior seems more associated with learningpreferences than with ability. Arguably, some gifted learners alsoenjoy straightforward, sequential presentations, but their questionsand responses to such presentations may dramatically differ fromthe questions and responses of bright children. As a final example,Szabos’ comparison states that gifted learners prefer adults whilebright children enjoy peers. This statement has negative connota-tions leading to the stereotype that gifted learners are so out-of-syncwith society and have such poor social skills that they can only com-municate with adults. In reality, gifted learners seek idea-matesrather than age-mates. They enjoy the company of peers when thepeer group understands the shared ideas.

Responding to those concerns, a three-way comparison of a highachiever, a gifted learner, and a creative thinker is proposed for youto ponder (See chart at end of article.). No column is intended to bemutually exclusive. For example, a high achiever might also be a cre-ative thinker, and a gifted learner might also be a creative thinker; acreative thinker might also be a high achiever, and a gifted learnermight also be a high achiever. This three-column comparisonemerged over several years while working with students represent-ing all three of these groups. Hundreds of teachers and studentsreviewed and discussed the items as the comparison developed.

High Achiever, GiftedLearner, Creative

Thinker

Bertie Kingore

How can we differentiate between thesethree types of learners?

Bertie Kingore is a national consultantwith Professional Associates Publishing in

Austin, Texas, specializing in gifted educa-tion, identification, and differentiation.

She is the parent of three gifted sons whofuel her dedication to gifted education.


Achiever continued

A High Achiever...Remembers the answers.

Is interested.

Is attentive.

Generates advanced ideas.

Works hard to achieve.

Answers the questions in detail.

Performs at the top of the group.

Responds with interest and opinions.

Learns with ease.

Needs 6 to 8 repetitions to master.

Comprehends at a high level.

Enjoys the company of age peers.

Understands complex, abstract humor.

Grasps the meaning.

Completes assignments on time.

Is receptive.

Is accurate and complete.

Enjoys school often.

Absorbs information.

Is a technician with expertise in a field.

Memorizes well.

Is highly alert and observant.

Is pleased with own learning.

Gets A’s.

Is able.

Poses unforeseen questions.

Is curious.

Is selectively mentally engaged.

Generates complex, abstract ideas.

Knows without working hard.

Ponders with depth and multiple perspectives.

Is beyond the group.

Exhibits feelings and opinions frommultiple perspectives.

Already knows.

Needs 1 to 3 repetitions to master.

Comprehends in-depth, complex ideas.

Prefers company of intellectual peers.

Creates complex, abstract humor.

Infers and connects concepts.

Initiates projects and extensions of assignments.

Is intense.

Is original and continually developing.

Enjoys self-directed learning.

Manipulates information.

Expert who abstracts beyond the field.

Guesses and infers well.

Anticipates and relates observations.

Is self-critical.

May not be motivated by grades.

Is intellectual.

Sees exceptions.

Wonders.

Daydreams; may seem off task.

Ideas overflow, many never developed.

Plays with ideas and concepts.

Injects new possibilities.

Is in own group.

Shares bizarre, sometimes conflicting opinions.

Questions: What if...

Questions the need for mastery.

Comprehends in-depth, complex ideas.

Prefers the company of creative peersbut often works alone.

Relishes wild, off-the-wall humor.

Makes mental leaps: Aha!

Initiates more projects than will ever becompleted.

Is independent and unconventional.

Is original and continually developing.

Enjoys creating.

Improvises.

Is an inventor and idea generator.

Creates and brainstorms well.

Is intuitive.

Is never finished with possibilities.

May not be motivated by grades.

Is idiosyncratic.

A Gifted Learner... A Creative Thinker...

Adapted by Kingore from Szabos (1989).


Placing ideas in categories is comforting because it helps us toorganize concepts in neat little boxes. We often place giftedness inone of four categories: intellectual, creative, kinesthetic, or psy-chosocial. All gifted children, however, do not fit into one of thesecategories. We must be aware of this and look for those hidden gift-ed who express more unique talents.

Giftedness is often hidden behind barriers to identification thatinclude linguistic function, learning style attributes, self-conceptperceptions, locus of control issues, and personality elements.

Barriers to IdentificationLinguistic FunctionIf English is not the primary language used at home, the child maynot be perceived as verbally capable; therefore, he may not be con-sidered as ready for gifted education (Harris, 2003).

Learning Style AttributesAttributes of different learning styles may mask giftedness. In addi-tion, a gifted child who is extremely sensitive to criticism or is basi-cally a private person may be excluded from the identificationprocess. Other students with learning styles that may interfere withidentification include the visual-spatial learner, the divergentthinker, the lateral thinker, the argumentative child, and the “classclown.”

The visual-spatial learner is attempting to function in an auditoryeducational environment. The highly creative, right-brained, diver-gent thinker attempts to function in a school environment that isdirected to the left-brained thinker.

The strong lateral thinker may also be a hidden gifted learner. Thisis a student who does not seem to stay on one subject, “grazes”broadly, and sees connections easily. This child makes instant asso-ciations, is a quick thinker, and will leap ahead to make the associa-tion in what looks like an interruption to classmates. The teachermay categorize this child as one who is unable to focus. This type oflearner is sometimes mislabeled with ADHD (Gresham &Macmillan, 1997; Baum & Owen, 1988).

The child who is argumentative, insisting on her own logical trajec-tory, may be mislabeled as a student with learning or behavioralproblems. An oppositional-defiant diagnosis, accurate or not, maycreate yet another barrier.

The child who sees humor in many situations, who acts out by being“the class clown,” may simply be bored and seen as a behavior prob-

How can we be more aware of characteristics that may mask giftedness?

Child-CenteredIdentification and the

Hidden Child

Carole Ruth Harris

Carole Ruth Harris is Director ofG.A.T.E.S. Research & Evaluation,Adjunct Professor of Education at

Northeastern University in Boston, andAcademic Dean of the Summer Institute

for Gifted at Amherst College inMassachusetts.


lem. These characteristics act as irritants in theclassroom and may block identification as gifted.Many gifted children have a sharp wit and sufferwhen the class is running at too slow a pace forthem. The “class clown” is usually optimistic andoutgoing and tries to avoid a depressed outlookthrough humor. In this way, the highly humorous,witty “behavior problem” is in control rather thanallowing the situation to gain the control.

Self-concept PerceptionsGifted children who are asynchronous in theirdevelopment are often strong in one area andweak in another. They may also be socially imma-ture and intellectually advanced. The child maymisinterpret this uneven learning pattern as being“dumb” in a given subject, unpopular with peers,or “weird.” The gaps between maturity level andintellectual functioning are sometimes great, andskill development is sharply contrasted with theareas of weakness. A teacher may address theweak areas, allowing the child to find his own wayin the strong areas, causing the child to receivemixed messages. In addition, gifted children whoare asynchronous, with developmental attributesat age level and intellectual capability at anadvanced level, may change their behavior fromone minute to the next. The behavioral attributesshift rapidly from developmental stage to adult-like verbalization (Duncan, 1999). Expectationsand the perceptions of caretakers, teacher, andpeers result in confusion about the child’s actualpotential.

Locus of Control IssuesFrustration ensues when a child with high cogni-tive or creative ability segues into an immaturesocial mode. This may result in negative behaviorthat creates barriers to learning or getting alongsocially with peers. Unusual patterns in cognitiveabilities, heightened intensity, and inner experi-ences in the hidden gifted often result in vulnera-bility, loss of self-esteem, and poor locus of control.

Advanced moral development; an innate sense ofright and wrong; broad social sensitivity; empa-thetic behavior, such as crying when someone elseis hurt, hungry, homeless, etc.; a strong sense ofhonesty; and global concerns all serve to create adichotomy between the inner experience and thepractical world where the child does not managewell.

Child-Centered continued Personality ElementsFarley (1986, 1991), in his approach to personality,delineates behavior in what he terms the Type TPersonality. The Big T is a high-risk thrill-seekingperson who seeks stimulation and complexity onone end of the continuum, while the Small t is alow risk, low intensity person who seeks simplici-ty and little variety. He also attaches two types ofbehavior to the Big T––that is, T-positive (T+) and T-negative (T-) with T+ representing healthy, con-structive, positive forms of risk-taking and T- rep-resenting destructive, negative behavior.

The major determinant of the Type T personality isheredity. Without intervention in the environment,Farley asserts, the Type T can display a negativedirection, with unacceptable social behavior, suchas experimentation with drugs, drinking and driv-ing, unsafe sex, and delinquency. With appropriateintervention in the environment, the Type T culti-vates creativity and produces original work with asocially redeeming focus, such as research, art, andmusic; engages in healthy, developing relation-ships; is motivated to participate in entrepreneur-ship that benefits society, such as raising moneyfor charity; and contributes socially, such as partic-ipating in volunteer work.

The hidden gifted may be a Type T who has devel-oped into a T- and who needs positive reinforce-ment of personality characteristics to optimize theinnate giftedness. The adjudicated adolescentswith whom I have worked, for instance, displayhighly destructive behavior. I am only called inwhen giftedness is suspected (as if it were a dis-ease), and the usual formulae have failed. Theseteenagers display T- behavior, and the giftedness ishidden until some intuitive social worker or psy-chiatrist, who understands giftedness, detects aspark and convinces the agency to find someonewho could provide intervention. By this stage, rap-port has to get beyond a thick, high barrier.

Methods of Detecting Hidden GiftednessLinguistic FunctionFor children who are bilingual, evaluation proce-dures should be used that are sensitive to thebilingualism or ethnic differences. Along withevaluation directed to the bilingual or culturally orethnically different child, an awareness of code-switching (difficulties in switching between lan-guages, such as sentence structure and syllableaccents) should be instituted to increase linguisticsensitivity on the part of the staff (Harris, 1991).


Learning Style AttributesCertain learning styles are often present in differ-ently cultured children. If the child does not workindependently but produces good or unusualwork when working with others, then productsneed to be examined in the light of the learningstyle and not the assignment. Highly sensitive chil-dren should be given positive reinforcement, suchas prizes, for success or for effort during evalua-tion and testing. Careful note should be taken ofvisual-spatial characteristics and divergent andlateral thinkers. Appropriate testing instrumentsshould be utilized, with special attention to emer-gent patterns during evaluation. The products ofthe “class clown” and the underachiever, whetherverbal and anecdotal or visual, should be present-ed to the evaluator for background study andincluded in the assessment analysis.

Self-concept PerceptionsWe must examine carefully the reasons for poorself-concept and determine if it is hiding the stu-dent’s giftedness. An anecdotal record kept by theparent can reveal hidden gifts in a child who hasbecome an expert at hiding behind poor self-con-cept or is being blocked by its presence. With olderchildren, a biographical approach will sometimesreveal hidden giftedness that is related to themasking technique.

Locus of Control IssuesChildren who have poor locus of control and hid-den giftedness may reveal the source of this issuewhen they are able to identify with the main char-acter of a book. The self-protect instinct that is acti-vated in the hidden gifted with weak locus of con-trol can be revealed by non-threatening evaluationprocedures such as the BASC(http://www.agsnet.com/Group.asp?nGroupInfoID=a3800) and the recently validated Naglieri non-verbal (http://www.mypsychologist.com/).

An additional, and highly useful technique is

incorporation of the Rimm AIM(http://www.sylviarimm.com/uatests.htm)into the assessment procedure. When it is given toboth parents and extended family, sharply differ-ing scores indicate that the child is receiving dif-ferent messages within the family and may beshuffling back and forth between them to gainsome stability. This would point to a contributingfactor in weak locus of control and can beaddressed in the appropriate context.

Personality ElementsDetecting hidden giftedness when the personalityis clearly a Type T is a simple matter. Among fac-tors mentioned by Farley (2001), the most out-standing and obvious ones are complexity (the needfor elaboration, while avoiding the central point),low structure (the inability to follow directions),and unpredictability (impulsive behavior with littleor no thought of consequences, along with open-ness to experience and a love of novelty).

Approaches to InterventionParents and/or teachers or other professionals inthe field of gifted education can institute interven-tion techniques.

Linguistic Function1. Cultivate an awareness of code-switching toincrease linguistic sensitivity.2. Clarify unusual phrases that have ethnic rootsand integrate them into the learning process.3. Encourage the child to clarify unusual vocabu-lary. This can be used as follow-up to seeminglynegative incidents and will strengthen relation-ships and socialization.

Learning Style Attributes1. Utilize constructive criticism or non-threaten-ing discussion with respect to the child’s approachto projects.2. Utilize visuals to accommodate the visual-spa-tial learner, or include visuals in requirements forverbal, report-like projects. 3. Explain the importance of focusing on a topicto the lateral thinker who “grazes.”4. Introduce formal debate or editorial commen-tary as appropriate vehicles for investigation andunderstanding. This should redirect the negativeenergy of those who choose to argue. 5. Illustrate the proper venue for humor throughliterary or dramatic examples such as satire, car-tooning, and other means of creative productivity.

Self-concept Perceptions1. Never say, “you can’t be good in everything,”

Child-Centered continued

If English is not the primary language used at home,the child may not be perceivedas verbally capable…

“”


or “nobody is perfect.” It conveys a negative mes-sage in a child’s world of understanding and doesnot translate well from its adult conceptualizationor meaning. 2. Keep an anecdotal record of student behavior;including what seems like trivia at the time. It mayprove important later on. 3. Adjust expectations to the behavior of themoment. If a 7 year old screeches with delightwhile playing rough and tumble with age peersand the next minute requires detailed explanationsof an electrical circuit or tectonic plate movement,go with the flow without encouraging or discour-aging either direction4. Expose the child to well-written biography orquality biographical video at an appropriate inter-est level. 5. Read to the child from journals of people whohave overcome obstacles, with special attention togender and ethnic meaning.

Locus of Control Issues1. Choose fiction with a view to meaningful iden-tification with the main character. Follow this upwith discussion.2. Have the child evaluated with the BASCand/or the Naglieri non-verbal.3. Consult a professional with expertise in giftededucation who utilizes a non-threatening, ethno-graphic or clinical case study approach, ratherthan plunging the child unprepared into a formaltesting situation without prior establishment ofrapport.4. Seek assistance to administer or analyze a val-idated inventory that will bring to light differingperceptions of the child within the family orextended family dynamic.

Personality Elements1. List the characteristics of the child, along withanecdotal support to determine if the child is aType T.2. Ensure that the direction is a T+ rather than aT- and follow it up with refinement of interventionand ongoing support.

Implications and Projections for Parents andEducatorsWhere there is hidden giftedness, there is potentialfor frustration that may culminate in a destructivelifestyle during the adult years. A child-centeredapproach to giftedness, rather than one that forcesthe child to fit into a structured situation, will

address the needs of the individual. Some of theworld’s most uniquely gifted people have fit intono prescribed category. Emile Zola, Walt Disney,Charles Darwin, Thomas Edison, Marie Curie,Winston Churchill, William Blake, and SarahBernhardt are among these gifted. Somewhere,somehow, their hidden gifts emerged, flowingfrom that hidden source, that hidden spark. ❖

Light breaks where no sun shines;Where no sea runs, the waters of the heartPush in their tides…

Dylan Thomas (Collected Poems, 1934, p. 29)

References

Baum, S. M. & Owen, S.V. (1988). High Ability/Learning Disabled Students: How Are They Different? Gifted Child Quarterly, 32 (3), 321-326.

Duncan, K. (1999). Homeschooling with an Individualized Curriculum. Paper presented at Annual Hollingworth Conference for Highly Gifted Children. Manchester, NH.

Farley, F. (1986). The Big T in Personality. Psychology Today, 20. 45-52.

Farley, F. (1991). The Type T Personality. In Lipsitt & L.L. Mitnick (Eds), Self-Regulatory Behavior and Risk-taking: Causes and Consequences. ( 371-382). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Farley, F. (2001). A Genetic Model of Creativity and the TypeT Personality Complex with Educational Implications. InLynch, M. D. & Harris, C.R. Fostering Creativity in Children, K - 8: Theory and Practice. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Gresham, F. & Macmillan, D. (1997). Social Competence andAffective Characteristics of Students with Mild Disabilities. Review of Educational Research, 67(4), 377-415.

Harris, C. R. (1991). Identifying and Serving the Gifted New Immigrant: Problems, Strategies, Implications. Teaching Exceptional Children, 23(4), 16-30.

Harris, C. R. (2003). Cultural Erosion, Assimilation, and the High Ability Student: A Clinical Case Study Approach. Paperpresented at Western Regional Meeting of Comparativeand International Education Society, Honolulu, January 3-5.

Child-Centered continued


G/T Identificationand Sci-Fi

Matchmaking:More Similar Than

They Should Be

Mary M. Bartek

How much should we rely on test results?

Consider this scenario from our technology-driven future: A womancontacts a matchmaking agency. She completes a form that theagency will use to identify her perfect mate. The woman is initiallypleased that the paperwork is minimal and straightforward: age,height, weight, education, and occupation, to start. But she is disap-pointed to find that many of her hobbies and interests are not listedin the “bubble” options on the sheet. She finds herself filling in“other” repeatedly.

Asked to prioritize the attributes she is looking for in a mate, shestruggles. After all, the list of options is long and many of themwould be desirable. Still, she follows directions and chooses theitems she admires most, knowing that doing this eliminates manyother good qualities.

Now, because this scenario takes place in the sci-fi future, she willsubmit the paperwork, pay her hundred bucks, and sit in the wait-ing room while a clerk puts her data into a computer. Her results willbe matched with those of the men who have come here before her. Ina few minutes, she is introduced to her future husband who entersfrom behind door number three. They’ll be expected to take theirvows at once, no questions asked. No exchanges. No returns. Andwhy should there be? It’s technology. It works, right? What doesfuturistic matchmaking have to do with gifted/talented identifica-tion? Often, far too much.

Consider the common practice of reducing a student to series of testscores. The child and his hopes, dreams, interests, and performanc-es are funneled into a testing grid. Out he comes as a 97, 89, 94 or a91, 79, 85. But whether scores are consistently high, mediocre, orsomewhere in between, we need to ask ourselves: Is that all of the per-tinent information we can gather on that child? Of course not.

The limits of testing are well documented in educational literature(Richert, 1991). At best, they give a snapshot of a student’s perform-ance on a given day. At worst, they fail to measure the true potentialor performance of a student who is tired, stressed, not feeling well,overly analytical of the test items, or unmotivated. And that’sassuming the test is well written, unbiased, and fully representativeof the aptitudes or achievements we’re hoping to measure. A stu-dent’s test record over time can give a good ballpark estimate of thatstudent’s ability to perform on the next test in comparison withother students. It can’t guarantee much more.

So does that mean we should scrap test gathering as a part of G/Tidentification? I’m not saying that. After all, test data is readily avail-able to school systems. And while it is far from perfect, it can and

Mary M. Bartek is a Gifted andTalented Resource Teacher in Cherry

Creek School District, Colorado.


does give usable information about some students.Children who consistently perform in exceptionalranges tell us something about themselves. Evenin the case of that rare student who demonstrateslittle exceptionality beyond very high test scores,the scores do indicate that we need to look at thestudent more closely.

But the funnel of test scores is too limiting. Anychild—including the one with consistently highscores—is much more than the sum of his or hertest results.

So what other evidence of exceptionality shouldwe be gathering besides standardized tests of apti-tude and achievement? An examination of bestpractices by the National Association of GiftedChildren (Landrum, Callahan, & Shaklee, 2001)suggests at least two additional broad areas: stu-dent performance and behavior.

Student performance can be measured in a num-ber of ways beyond annual tests. Report cardgrades by themselves may be no more powerfulthan test scores (Do they show exceptionality ormerely a willingness of a student to do as she isasked?). However, they can be a valuable part ofthis picture. Portfolios and work samples can helpto expand this information. Teachers and specialclass instructors should have the opportunity andobligation to forward evidence of exceptional per-formance to the individuals who are gatheringidentification information. Anecdotal informationfrom parents can also help, particularly when it isgathered in writing and dated. The preschoolerwho says, “A cloud is like a piñata because light-ning pokes it, and the rain bursts out,” is one wemay need to keep an eye on for G/T programmingor enrichment opportunities now––even if the firstformal testing won’t come for several years.

Observations of student behaviors can also be apowerful tool. Many excellent checklists attemptto align what we know about gifted children his-torically to the child in question. Some checklistsare specific to subject area behaviors––for instance,the characteristics we can observe in an exception-al math student. Others address qualities seen in ahigh percentage of gifted children, such as intensi-ty, persistence, or an advanced sense of humor.Since the information gathered on these instru-ments represents observations over time, the datagathered can be more meaningful than the snap-

shot collected on standardized tests.

Two observation checklists are the Scales for Ratingthe Behavioral Characteristics of Superior Students(Renzulli, Smith, et al., 2002) and KingoreObservation Inventory (2001). The Renzulli Scalesare available for learning, creativity, motivation,and other characteristics, as well as several subjectareas. The Kingore Inventory is available in bothprimary and intermediate forms.

Gathering student information from a variety ofsources is more time-consuming than reading atest score, or even a compilation of test scores, butthe resulting information is worth it. Studentstrengths and interests become clearer, leading tobetter programming. The test-phobic or under-the-weather-on-test-day students have alternate waysto demonstrate exceptional strengths. Most impor-tant, G/T identification becomes a valuable, realis-tic portrait of a student, not just a numerical aver-age.

Back to our sci-fi matchmaking scene––I imaginethat the young woman may not live happily everafter with her computer-match man after all. Shewon’t trust a process where she has had no oppor-tunity to include her own observations.

“How do I know he’s the right one?” she’ll cry. “Icouldn’t answer the questions you didn’t ask.”

I think my futuristic woman has a point. It’s apoint we should listen to as we develop proce-dures for G/T identification. ❖

References

Kingore, B., 2001. Austin: Professional Associates Publishing.Landrum, M., Callahan, C., & Shaklee, B. (Eds.)(2001).

Aiming for Excellence: Gifted Program Standards. Waco, TX: Prufrock.

Renzulli, J.S., Smith, L.H., et al. (2002). Mansfield Center, CT:Creative Learning Press

Richert, S. (1991). Rampant Problems and Promising Practices in Identification. In N. Colangelo & G.A. Davis(Eds.). A Handbook of Gifted Education (pp. 81-96).Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

G/T continued


Gifted or NotGifted–Is Thatthe Question?

Susan Hansford

Are we identifying needs as well as labels?

A large suburban school district prides itself on its diversity; yetcloser examination of those who are identified as gifted reveals adramatic underrepresentation of children from the district’s cultur-al and ethnic groups––children whose first language is not Englishand children from homes with economic struggles.

Aaron has been diagnosed with ADHD. His evaluation reveals aVerbal IQ of 94 and a Performance IQ of 142. His Full Scale scoredoes not meet state requirements for gifted identification nor localrequirements for gifted services. His behavior in his 1st-grade class-room has become so disruptive that there is serious considerationbeing given to placement in a self-contained classroom for childrenwith behavioral difficulties.

We assume that our ways of identifying gifted children open thedoor to meeting needs and making gifted children’s lives better. Weneed to ask ourselves to what extent that is true. Who are we iden-tifying? Are we identifying needs as well as labels? Are we findingonly those gifted children whose needs are easy to identify and meetand merely confirming what parents and teachers already know?Are we identifying those gifted children whose needs are unlikely tobe met without our intervention? Are we finding gifted childrenwhose needs are most critical?

The results of years of traditional identification and placement prac-tices suggest that for some gifted children we are doing a good job.Far too many others are still overlooked, ignored, or mislabeled.

We have become confused. In our struggle for recognition of giftedchildren and their needs, we have lost sight of the goal. Restrictivestate requirements, administrative and parental pressures, andfinancial issues have sidetracked us. What is our goal? Is the labelthe goal? Is placing children in “the program” the goal? Is gettingfunding the goal? Our identification practices are dominated bypragmatics. How much will it cost? How much time will it take?Can it be done easier, faster, cheaper? How many gifted children dowe have? How much will it cost to serve them? As a result, we haveoverlooked, ignored, or misidentified groups of gifted children—children from racial or ethnic minority groups, those whose primarylanguage is not English, those from low socioeconomic areas, andthose who have disabilities. These children’s needs are those mostunlikely to be recognized without our intervention, and the childrenare those whose needs may be the most critical. We find, label, andserve gifted children who are easy to identify and whose needs are

Susan Hansford is Supervisor ofAdvanced Study & Enrichment for North

Olmsted City Schools in Ohio and aninstructor at Kent State University.


Question continued

most easily met within existing program struc-tures.

Does this mean we should abandon testing, identi-fication, and specific services for gifted children?No. We do, however, need to examine, and thenmodify, our practices to ensure that the focus andemphasis is on finding and then meeting the needsof all gifted children, not only the “easy” ones. Thepurpose of identification is to make gifted chil-dren’s lives better, not to make our adult lives eas-ier or simpler. To do so requires overcoming sever-al barriers to rethinking our strategies.

Overcoming Barriers to Rethinking OurStrategiesIf identification only involves labeling a child andplacing him into a pre-established program basedon generalizations, we will not be able to ade-quately address his needs. It is also likely that, byusing traditional identification practices andbeliefs, we have overlooked many gifted children.Appropriate identification practice informs usabout gifted children’s strengths and needs.Sometimes those needs and strengths are academ-ic. Often there are many more needs and strengths.There are needs related to the developmental asyn-chrony of gifted children, to the social/emotionalissues that can affect gifted children, or to a schoolenvironment that is not receptive to them or theirstyle of learning. There are also strengths related tointerpersonal or intrapersonal skills, visual-spatialskills, and creativity.

Several publications have detailed specific princi-ples for appropriate identification of gifted chil-dren (Callahan & McIntire, 1994; NationalAssociation for Gifted Children, 1998; Richert,Alvino, & McDonnel, 1982). Barriers in our think-ing and practices, some of which are unique to aspecific setting, can limit applying these principlesin a public school.

State/local Requirements and InadequateIdentification ProceduresState and local requirements for identification andservices often do not align with best practice rec-ommendations in the field. All too often staterequirements are determined by those unfamiliarwith assessment and/or giftedness. In addition,

the current climate of accountability as measuredby standardized, high stakes testing has led to anover-reliance and unwarranted faith in the reliabil-ity and validity of such testing. Meeting therequirements of state/local statutes that conflictwith appropriate strategies is a difficult task, butone we must undertake if we are committed tofinding and meeting the needs of all gifted chil-dren.

We can begin to overcome this barrier with a focuson discovering and meeting individual children’sneeds and strengths, regardless of whether or notthe gifted label has been applied to that child. Wecan label, as we are required to label, but also gobeyond what may be a restrictive definition andunderstanding of giftedness. We can add to therequired procedures whatever is necessary to bet-ter understand gifted children’s needs andstrengths.

We must think beyond the boundaries that stateand local policies may create. Each of us canbroaden our individual focus and advocacy, whichmay have been narrowed by too many years ofinappropriate, required practices. A narrowedfocus has led to the under-identification of chil-dren from certain populations and over-identifica-tion or misidentification of children from otherpopulations. Widening our focus beyond therequirements to one that seeks to meet gifted chil-dren’s needs, whether or not they “make the cut,”is critical.

It is also time for those of us working in schools toacquire a much more thorough and current under-standing of assessment, testing, and measurement,especially as those concepts relate to identifyinggifted children. Our knowledge of identificationand assessment cannot be limited to implementingstate or local requirements.

The purpose of identification is to make gifted children’s lives better, notto make our adult lives easier orsimpler.

“”


Tests and other assessments can tell us importantinformation about children, provided we know thestrengths and limitations of those tests and assess-ments. Analyzing assessment results for clues togiftedness, using multiple sources of informationand multiple methods of assessment, using differ-entiated instruction to identify giftedness andneeds, and using sub-scores from tests can aid usin finding those gifted children whose compositescores may not meet required levels. If weapproach the process of identification as one offinding out about children’s needs and strengths,the process becomes more individualized andinformative.

Identifying needs leads to differentiation. It opensdoors of communication with teachers, overcom-ing barriers based on inaccurate perceptions ofgifted children and the gifted label. The questionchanges from “Is this child gifted?” or “Does thischild meet the criteria we have assigned to thelabel ‘gifted’?” to the more important question,“What are this child’s needs and how might weaddress them?”

Bias, Stereotypes, and RacismThe influence of bias, stereotypes, and racism onthe traditional identification process cannot beunderstated. As we have attempted to find ways toaddress the under-identification of certain popula-tions of gifted children, we have sometimes over-looked some of the more obvious issues. Before wereplace those traditional strategies that haveproven to be reliable and valuable, we must pro-vide access to those strategies to all children whowould benefit from them. Far too many childrenare screened out of the identification process tooearly.

Overcoming bias, stereotypes, and racism isextremely difficult. Stereotypes and misconcep-tions about giftedness add to this difficulty. Whileit is easy to point the blame at tests, parenting,poverty, or society in general, we must first exam-ine and address our personal beliefs and biases.Personal beliefs highly influence our practices,including gifted identification. Bias, stereotyping,and racism can be very difficult to admit; yet doingso is the first step toward changing. Our willing-

ness to re-think how we implement state and localpolicies for identification can be limited if we arenot alert to the ways in which we are influenced byour personal biases.

We can begin by closely examining our records ofidentification procedures and dissecting each step,stage, and procedure. Are we keeping records thatare disaggregated in ways that might reveal bias?Who is included in this step, stage, or procedure?Who is excluded? What could be done to ensuremore equitable access to this or the next step/pro-cedure?

Teaching and learning about multicultural issuesis critical. General multicultural training is notenough however. Issues of racism and bias need tobe discussed directly in relationship to giftednessand gifted identification. Biases and stereotypesabout gifted children can override even the mostextensive multicultural training. The staff of thedistrict mentioned at the beginning of this articlehad participated in a long term initiative of gener-al multicultural training, yet their referrals ofAfrican American children and the number ofthese children identified as gifted were very low.

PragmaticsThree words––easier, cheaper, quicker––seem todominate a lot of what happens in public schools.There are rarely, if ever, enough resources to goaround. This is particularly problematic for giftededucation in states where it is not mandated.Schools continually are asked to accomplish morewith fewer resources; gifted identification is noexception. An emphasis on finding easier, cheaper,quicker ways to identify gifted children makes analready difficult process even more vulnerable toserious mistakes.

The identification of gifted children is a challeng-ing undertaking. Easier, cheaper, and quicker leadsto the under-identification of gifted children, par-ticularly those who have historically been over-looked. It leads to the over-identification andmisidentification of many other children. It leadsto inappropriate expectations for those childrenidentified as gifted and those children not identi-fied as gifted. It leads to identification based on alabel rather than on children’s needs.

Better identification is not about finding the right

Question continued


test. It’s about finding ways for gifted children toshow their strengths and someone recognizing thegiftedness. It’s about giving gifted children everypossible chance to show us who they are. It’s abouta process that leads to knowing more about chil-dren’s needs and meeting those needs.

Effective identification of gifted children requiresus to abandon our misconceptions of the impor-tance of the gifted label and the exclusive value oftest-based assessment. Appropriate identificationfocuses on identifying and meeting individual gift-ed children’s needs, regardless of the child’s“label.” The steps of identifying and meeting theneeds of all children are changing. We are re-exam-ining our thinking about the use and purpose ofidentification, broadening our perspectives ofways in which we can know and serve children,acknowledging our own biases and mispercep-tions, and inconveniencing ourselves to do thingsdifferently. The field of gifted education is a diffi-cult one in which to work. Stereotypes, myths, andbias against giftedness, make change difficult. Ifthe change does not begin with us, then who willbegin it? If we are not the advocates for appropri-ate practice, who will be?

When we speak of meeting the needs of all giftedchildren it is too easy to continue thinking in termsof groups of children, not individuals. Phrasessuch as “all children can learn” and “all childrenwill achieve at high levels,” while well inten-tioned, have become clichés; we analyze test scoresby groups of children (gender, ethnicity, race,socioeconomic status) to determine if “all” chil-dren are learning. Changing one word may help uschange our focus, redirect our energy, and renewour commitment. “All” is too easy, too glib, andhas lost its meaning. “All” makes it too easy tobelieve we have done well if we meet the needs ofgroups of gifted children. We must commit our-selves to the inconvenience and difficulty of dis-covering and meeting the needs of each and everychild because every child is unique. Every giftedchild is unique. We must find that uniqueness,address it, and celebrate it—and that is somethinga label cannot do.

Should we abandon specific services for gifted

Question continued children? Absolutely not! However, we mustensure that our purpose of meeting children’sneeds guides the services we provide, and theservices are appropriately differentiated for giftedchildren. Should we abandon the label “gifted?”Unfortunately, labels still serve a purpose in publiceducation by drawing attention to children withspecial needs. In an ideal world, schools wouldhave enough resources and teachers enough train-ing, and labels would not be necessary. We havequite a distance to go. ❖

References

Callahan, C. M. & McIntire, J. A. (1994). Identifying Outstanding Talent in American Indian and Alaska Native Students. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.

National Association for Gifted Children. (1998). Pre-K - Grade 12 Gifted Program Standards. Washington, D. C.

Richert, E. S., Alvino, J. J., & McDonnel, R. C. (1982). NationalReport on Identification: Assessment and Recommendations for Comprehensive Identification of Gifted and Talented Youth. Sewell, NJ: Educational Improvement Center-South.


GATEway Project

Jacquelin Medina &Wendy Joffe Across the country, educators are seeking to address the gaps that

exist in the identification of gifted and talented students from vari-ous cultural, linguistic, and ethnic groups. Seeing students fromthese populations through a fresh lens can lead the way to greaterawareness of their strengths as learners, with less focus on theirdeficiencies in achievement. Teachers more readily treat students aspotential achievers when they see for themselves how they canaddress these strengths within their classrooms. The GATEwayProject is blazing a trail in this direction in the largest school districtin Colorado.

The Jefferson County School District was awarded the prestigiousJavits Grant during the summer of 2001. The GATEway project pro-poses to open the doors of gifted and talented education to mem-bers of traditionally underrepresented groups (including lowincome, limited English proficiency, and disabled) using a widevariety of research-based strategies. The grant has allowed the dis-trict to expand gifted/talented services into seven targetedschools––five elementary and two middle schools––as part of theGATEway Project. The aim of the project is to establish the benefitsof a rich and challenging curriculum for all students, especiallythose with outstanding potential.

Project goals are 1. to increase the number of gifted and talented students identi-

fied from traditionally underrepresented groups at targeted schools,2. implement an instructional framework that is aligned to the

student’s strengths and culture, 3. increase student achievement in reading and writing for iden-

tified students.

The first goal has been accomplished through the use of non-tradi-tional identification measures. The grant team has used the DIS-COVER Process—a proven performance-based alternative to tradi-tional G/T identification methods. It is particularly suitable for theunderrepresented populations in the GATEway schools.Identification through DISCOVER allows for the creation of talent-cluster groups for direct instruction. These students are targetedtoward advanced work.

Addressing the second goal has involved helping teachers use theknowledge gained from the DISCOVER assessment to align the cur-riculum with the strengths of the students in their classes. Strength-based curriculum and strategies in Jeffco means

How has one school district increased theidentification and servicing of gifted

students from traditionally underrepresented groups?

Jacquelin Medina is principal consult-ant for gifted education at the ColoradoDepartment of Education. In her former

position as director of gifted education inJefferson County schools, years one andtwo of the Javits grant were written and

implemented. She has also developedother district wide procedures that fosteridentification of gifted students in under-

served populations.

Wendy Joffe is a resource teacher inJefferson County, Colorado, Gifted andTalented office. She facilitates the cre-ation of teacher materials that will be

produced through the Javits grant.

ADVANCED BY DESIGNLeading the Way to

Success


GATEway continued

• parental involvement and education• multiple criteria assessment• differentiated instruction incorporating

Multiple Intelligences into strength-based, cultur-ally-sensitive programming

• cluster grouping• Advanced Learning Plans and individual-

ized Talent Development Plans• teacher coaching, observations, and consul-

tation• collaboration of G/T, Instructional Services,

and Multi-cultural Offices• embedded professional development in G/T

best practices

Our first year accomplishments include• a talent pool reflecting the minority profiles

of the targeted schools within 2 percent • the initiation of strength-based accommoda-

tions• Talent Development Plans aligned with stu-

dents’ strength areas• collection of baseline literacy data on all

identified students• work with students including mentorships,

small group studies, and literacy nights

Our second year accomplishments, thus far,include

• continuation of the first year accomplish-ments

• identification by each targeted school of acluster teacher for each grade level

• finalized GATEway instructional frameworkincluding Multiple Intelligences, strength-basedaccommodations, thinking skills, creativity, ques-tioning strategies, and cultural responsivenessincorporated into the skills and processes used in

the classroom• publication and distribution of a monthly

bilingual parent newsletter• development of teacher-created literacy les-

sons based on the GATEway framework• creation of a notebook for each cluster

teacher divided into sections based on the frame-work

• weekly materials, aligned to the various sec-tions of the framework, supplied to each clusterteacher

• professional development for the clusterteachers

Plans for the third year include continuation of thesuccessful strategies used so far, as well as collec-tion of end-of-project literacy data to address thethird goal to increase student achievement in read-ing and writing.

GATEway team members are excited about theirprogress in meeting the needs of high potentialstudents from underserved populations. One ofthe most satisfying aspects of the GATEwayprocess is its integration into existing programs inthe district. This will help ensure that the gainscontinue and that the process is sustainable evenafter the grant ends. ❖

Seeing students from thesepopulations through a fresh lenscan lead the way to greaterawareness of their strengths aslearners…

“”


Team teaching, co-teaching, and collaborative teaching are all termsused to describe a cooperative effort between multiple educators.Typically, the teaming approach is used by special education andclassroom teachers (Hollister, 2000). Teaming general educationteachers and special education teachers in regular classrooms hasemerged as a more common practice since the reauthorization of theIndividuals with Disabilities Education Act in 1997 (Folly & Baxter,2001). While teaming, the teachers plan together and share a class-room to teach and provide remediation for students having difficul-ties with academic concepts.

Numerous articles have been written about effective teaming strate-gies for special educators (e.g., Hollister, 2000; Kluwin, 1999;Schamber, 1999). Teachers benefit from teaming because they 1. are exposed to a variety of expertise2. share ideas about a particular student’s learning needs 3. observe a variety of strategies and teaching styles (Wood, 1998)

While the benefits of collaboration are available for all special edu-cation and gifted education teachers, an educator of gifted childrenmay find himself in a lonely place as the only expert within a schooldistrict (Dettmer, Thurston, & Dyck, 1993). Thus, it may be especial-ly important to work collaboratively with other educators of thegifted, general education teachers, or experts from local educationalcooperatives and universities.

The ProgramSince the mandate of gifted education in the state of Arkansas in themiddle 1980s, the Academy for Young Scholars (AFYS) has existed.Each spring brochures are sent to area schools inviting students,who have been identified and are being served as gifted, talented,and creative, to attend the three-week summer program. Since thestate also mandates an identification procedure that is consistentbetween school districts, all applicants are accepted. These appli-cants are divided into categories, which are (a) wee scholars––ages4-6, (b) primary scholars––ages 7-8, (c) intermediate scholars––ages9-12, and (d) advanced scholars––ages 13-15.

The team of teachers, which is made up of university students,develops a new theme for the academy each year. The theme thenbecomes the basis for the three-week intensive curriculum. Someexamples of themes from the past are Jammin’ in July, The Future: AWay Out World, and An Ocean Odyssey. The teachers use the themeto develop activities. When the theme was The Future: A Way OutWorld, primary students created clothing for the future. They alsocreated new habitats for animals and produced dioramas to displaytheir ideas. Each year, all the activities are based on creative problemsolving and production.

It’s a Fit:Collaboration andGifted Education

Julie Milligan & Dennis Campbell

What is a structure that can be used to provide teachers with teaming experience?

Julie Milligan is Assistant Professor inthe Department of Educational

Leadership, Curriculum, & SpecialEducation at Arkansas State University.She is Director of the Gifted Education

Program.

Dennis Campbell is Assistant Professorin the Department of EducationalLeadership, Curriculum, & Special

Education at Arkansas State University.He is Director of Early Childhood Special

Education.


When the parents and children arrive, they aregiven a tour of the facilities and enjoy an introduc-tion performance by the teachers. The teachersmay introduce the theme by singing, dancing, orperforming to give the parents and students aglance at the events to come. Each day uponarrival the students engage in a “warm-up” activi-ty geared toward the theme and based on creativeproblem solving. For the remainder of the time,students engage in centers for hands-on discoverylearning, research, competitions (e.g., chess or quizbowl), and learning experience trips. For example,when the theme was Jammin’in July, students vis-ited the home of Elvis Presley for a special behindthe scenes tour of Graceland with song writingdemonstrations. They also visited the musicdepartment at the university to interview a musi-cian.

At the end of the summer, academy parents, stu-dents, and teachers complete questionnaires toprovide feedback on the effectiveness of the pro-gram. The feedback provides information aboutbenefits and changes needed for the planning ofthe following year. Over the past three years, atheme emerged from teachers’ answers to one ofthe open-ended questions. When asked about themost beneficial aspects of the summer program,teachers consistently referred to the camaraderiewith fellow teachers to plan curriculum and deliv-er instruction. As a follow-up, teachers from thepast three years were recently asked to reflectupon their experiences of teaming during theirsummer at AFYS. They were asked three questionsin a brief questionnaire. 1. How was the team effort effective in planningthe AFYS? 2. What were the benefits of team teaching? 3. Have you maintained “teaming” with anyindividuals since that time?

As they shared their reflections, specific benefits ofteaming emerged.

Team PlanningAt AFYS, the team planning begins as soon as theteachers arrive. The teachers have one week todecide on a theme, plan the curriculum, and pre-pare the teaming environment. A local school dis-trict hosts AFYS at the high school complex.Typically, four rooms are prepared, one room perage group—wee scholars, primary scholars, inter-mediate scholars, and advanced scholars. Shareddecision making begins as soon as the teachersreceive the list of names and ages of the children

who plan to attend the program. First, the teachersdecide which age they prefer to teach. Next, theyteam themselves according to the age they havechosen. At that point, the groups of teachers beginpreparing the rooms and curriculum. While theplanning of AFYS occurs over a short period oftime, the teachers had positive things to say abouttheir teaming efforts. According to the teachers’responses on the three-item questionnaire, thebenefits of team planning were noted in two cate-gories: (a) idea sharing and (b) meeting deadlines.The following vignette from one teacher’s reflec-tion indicates the importance of idea sharing:Using a team effort (for planning) immediately gave usa wealth of ideas to use based on everyone’s differentareas of expertise and experience. Brainstorming togeth-er, along with the piggybacking that accompanies thatprocess, helped me at least see different ways of plan-ning activities. Another teacher described how theAFYS theme emerged one summer through team plan-ning by saying, ‘To think of a theme by oneself wouldhave been a major chore. But when we put our headstogether and started brainstorming catchy themes, cou-pled with the expertise of a few in the group who knewmusic and drama, Jammin’ in July surfaced prettyquickly.’ Still in the spirit of cooperation, anotherteacher reported, ‘Being on a team really helped all of usbounce ideas off each other. Other people had ideas thatI’d not thought of.’

Due to the pressures of time constraints for prepar-ing the environment and curriculum at the AFYS,the teachers also described how the team processcontributed to productivity. The following state-ments by teachers support the use of team plan-ning to meet demanding time lines: “We had won-derful creative thinkers that helped get thingsstarted, and many hard workers willing to getbusy meeting those tight deadlines.” Congruent tothat response another said, “Because we had a lim-ited time to get things ready, we had to all pitch in;we made a list of tasks, divided them, and unbe-lievably, we were ready for the children onMonday.” As for planning curriculum, the sameteachers said, “The planning of daily lessons wasso much more effective between the three of us. Wewould go back to our home schools and bring backideas, and before we knew it, we had lessons for anentire day.”

Team TeachingThree categories of benefits for teaching in teamsbecame apparent. They were (a) benefits to stu-dents, (b) increased confidence, and (c) borrowedstrategies. One teacher stated, “It was very helpfulhaving others [teachers] in the room to help withthe lessons. It allowed students to be working ondifferent projects in other areas of the classroom

Fit continued


with the supervision of an adult.” Another said,“While I am teaching, I’m not always aware of thebehavior or individual student’s progress; it wasnice to have other teachers watching. They sawthings I didn’t see.”

The camaraderie between the teachers was alsoperceived to be beneficial to beginning teachers.One teacher explained by saying, “Even those verynew to gifted/talented with little self confidenceseemed to have a positive experience from thissummer program, because everyone else was sohelpful and caring of how they involved thosewho felt less secure without making them feelbadly.” Another respondent indicated that the pro-gram provided a “safe place to experiment, teach,and learn by trial and error.” The most noticeablepositive effect of the team teaching was the bor-rowed resources. One teacher said, “In gifted edu-cation, no one hands you a text book and tells youto cover the content. The curriculum and strategiesare up to the teacher. At AFYS we were given lotsof ideas to take back and use.” Another responsewas, “I got to see others model their lessons, whichgave me ideas for mine, and naturally, being teach-ers, we all borrowed everything we could fromone another.”

Perhaps a unique feature of this program’s teamprocess is the peer observation procedures. Ratherthan having the sole input of an instructor for les-son critiques, the teachers provide feedback to oneanother following an observation of teaching.Reflective teaching is implemented on an informalbasis. Following the departure of the students inthe afternoon, the teams meet to discuss theirprogress for the day. Teachers first discuss whatthey perceive to be successful or disappointingfrom the day’s activities or lessons. Then theobserving peer teacher guides a discussion byquestioning what might be changed about thedelivery to meet expectations of success in a sub-sequent lesson.

As the teachers shared ideas during reflective time,the team experience provided them with sugges-

Fit continued tions so that they could make adjustments for thenext lesson. “The ideas we swapped…were lifesavers many times, and the suggestions I wasgiven in the reflective time helped me makeadjustments for the next day.” Another teachercommented that through reflective time, she wasmade aware of her constant use of closed ques-tions during her teaching. She indicated she con-tinually worked to ask questions, which were openended following the reflective meetings.

Maintaining the Team Effort Perhaps it is more difficult to maintain team effortswhen teachers close the classroom door. Perhaps itis more difficult to collaborate when there is onlyone teacher per school district responsible for chil-dren who are gifted, talented, and creative. But allteachers who responded to the follow-up ques-tionnaire reported collaborative efforts at somelevel upon returning to their schools. One teacherhad the following to say:Several members of the AFYS and I email curriculumideas to each other. We have even gone so far as to mailunits to one another. We also compare everything fromscreening and identification methods to assessmentinstruments used for placement. We go to regionalmeetings together to get updates in gifted education. Weeven go to conferences together.

Another said, “I share ideas with another localG/T teacher. We live in the same town, eventhough we teach in different districts.” Anotherreported some of the same collaborative efforts bysaying, “We’re [teachers from AFYS] still bouncingideas off each other through email or when we seeeach other at regional meetings.” This teacherwent further to say, “I have several times pulledout a file of lessons we shared (during AFYS) andtuned things up a bit to fit my personal needs.During those times, I smile, thankful for thatfriend who shared part of her creativity with me.”

Only one of the teachers reported team teachingwith classroom teachers at her school: My cooperative efforts have continued to include myG/T friends. I’ve maintained contact with the G/Tteachers in my region through regional meetings. Wehave also implemented team teaching with the middlelevel teachers at our school. They give me their skills aweek ahead, I plan enrichment based on that skill, andthen we teach the class together. The teacher presentsthe basic skill, and I do the enrichment lesson. It reallyworks!

Learned Advice from the Team Based on the reflections of the AFYS teachers,teaming is a valuable tool for planning and deliv-ering appropriate curriculum for gifted children.

Because we had a limitedtime to get things ready, we hadto all pitch in…“

”


Sharing is one way to eliminate the feelings of iso-lation. The following advice may help other edu-cators build teams to aid with planning and deliv-ering appropriate curriculum for advanced learn-ers:

• Make the opportunity to network with othergifted education teachers. Educators of gifted chil-dren may benefit from sharing ideas with othereducators of the gifted. The process of collabora-tive planning expedites goal setting and providesteachers of the gifted with multiple resources.Since resources are typically at the discretion of thegifted/talented/creative teacher, team planningmay provide additional materials.

• Transfer the teaming concept to classroomteachers. While few gifted education teachers co-teach or do collaborative planning with classroomteachers, the opportunities are limitless. Teamteaching with classroom teachers gives the giftedprogram teacher the opportunity to demonstratestrategies for engaging learners in enrichmentactivities. It also provides an opportunity for gift-ed program educators to become knowledgeableabout the skills being taught in the regular class-room. Both teachers may benefit from observingother teaching styles.

• Seek support from regional educational coop-eratives and nearby universities. Another opportu-nity for collaboration exists outside the realm ofthe school setting. There are resources availablethrough directors of gifted education within edu-cational cooperatives or universities. These agen-cies may offer activities and learning opportunitiesfor students who are gifted, talented, and creative.

• Seek the support of parents. While the plan-ning and program delivery for AFYS did notinclude the direct assistance of the parents,parental support is a necessity for the successfulcollaborative planning of gifted education pro-grams. Unlike special education, an IEP is notrequired for establishing program services for stu-dents who are gifted, talented, and creative.However, who knows the child better than the par-ents? Thus, parents should be included in the iden-tification process and decisions about appropriateprogramming services.

• Maintain a cooperative spirit. The education ofchildren with diverse learning needs is a challeng-ing task. A child’s giftedness is not limited to thetime he spends in a classroom with a specialist.

Because these children are in the regular classroomthe majority of the time, a cooperative effort isrequired by all who impact the education of thechild—the school administrator, the classroomteacher, the gifted education specialist, and theparents.

Working together through a team effort is one wayto make the delivery of program services possible.Many benefits exist with sharing ideas, materials,learning objectives, and classroom space.Individual student’s needs are more easily recog-nized. Multiple ideas from which to choose makecurriculum planning more effective. And havingother educators to depend upon provides all par-ticipants with additional resources and materials.❖

References

Dettmer, P., Thurston, L., & Dyck, N. (1993). Consultation, Collaboration, and Team for Students with Special Needs.Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Folly, L. C. & Baxter, K. P. (2001). Forming General Educationand Special Education Teams. Principal Leadership, 2(3), 73-74.

Hollister, W. M. (2000). Teaming for Learning Success. PrimaryVoices K - 6, 8(4), 20-29.

Kluwin, T. M. (1999). Co-teaching Deaf and Hearing Students: Research on Social Integration. American Annalsof the Deaf, 144(4), 3, 39-345.

Schamber, S. (1999). Surviving Team Teaching’s Good Intentions. The Education Digest, 64(8), 18-23.

Wood, M. (1998). Whose Job Is It Anyway? Educational Rolesin Inclusion. Exceptional Children, 64(2),181-195.

Fit continued

BEYOND GIFTEDNESSCONFERENCE TAPES

- and now a CD!

pen Space CommunicationsUSE ORDER FORM IN THIS ISSUE

1-800-494-6178www.openspacecomm.com


Jim DelisleNeither

Freak norGeek

Beyond Giftedness 10

BEYOND GIFTEDNESS 10Conference CD

Keynote Presentation Jim DelisleNeither Freak nor Geek:

Social & Emotional Needs of GiftedChildren

($18 each)

1) Social/Emotional-Betts/ADD-Dorry2) Perfectionism-Fertig3) Underserved Gifted-Smutny4) Giftedness & the Visual Learner-Freed5) Learning Styles/ADD-Freed6) G/T & CSAP: Succeeding at Both-Scott Plus side 2: Underserved Gifted-Smutny

Audio Tapes from pastkeynote speakers:

($10 each)

Special Both Freed Tapes $20(Add Shipping / Handling to all orders -see order form)

Onlinewww.our-gifted.com

Introductory rates: $32 Individual SAVE $5 $46 Institution SAVE $2

Group Rates: $46 plus $10 per additional user

Replace your mailed print subscription....International - NO Ship/Handling

800-494-6178 / [email protected]

www.openspacecomm.comwww.our-gifted.com (online journal)

This Summer....Log-on to theInternetanywhere,anytime. . . .read Understanding Our Gifted

SUBSCRIBE NOWSAVE!

Volume 4-8 $8 ea. US - $15 International + S/Hq 4 -1 Student Researchq 4 -2 Technology and Educationq 4 -3 Empowering Parentsq 4 -4 Assessing the Giftedq 4 -5 Collaborative Effortsq 4 -6 Family Relationships

q Volume 4 All 6 Issues $30 -Save $18 (U.S. only)q 5 -1 Homeschoolingq 5 -2 Promising Practicesq 5 -3 Parent Advocacyq 5 -5 Young Gifted Childq 5-5a Being Out of Syncq 5 -6 Philosophy of Giftedness

q Volume 5 All 6 Issues $30 -Save $18 (U.S. only)q 6 -1 Valuing Parentsq 6 -2 Excellence Revisitedq 6 -3 Networkingq 6 -4 Talent Searchesq 6 -5 Attention Deficit Disordersq 6 -6 Mainstreaming

q Volume 6 All 6 Issues $30 -Save $18 (U.S. only)q 7-1 Spectrum of Giftednessq 7 -2 Update On Technologyq 7 -3 Gifted Young Childrenq 7 -4 Secondary Gifted Studentsq 7 -5 Exploring Creativityq 7 -6 Mutual Education

q Volume 7 All 6 Issues $30 -Save $18 (U.S. only)q 8 -1 Multicultural Issuesq 8 -2 Gifted Students Upper Elem./Middleq 8 -3 The Visual Learnerq 8 -4 Parenting & Teaching Gifted Childrenq 8 -5 Global Connections / Gifted Studentsq 8 -6 Affective Needs

q Volume 8 All 6 Issues $30 -Save $18 (U.S. only) Volume 9-13 $14 ea. US - $20 International + S/Hq 9 -1 Perfectionismq 9 -2 Gifted Ed. & the Lawq 9 -3 Inside Giftednessq 9 -4 Learning Differences

q Volume 9 All 4 Issues $40 -Save $16 (U.S. only)q 10-1 Educational Optionsq 10-2 Intelligence Revisitedq 10-3 Parenting & Advocacyq 10-4 Curriculum

q Volume 10 All 4 Issues $40 -Save $16 (U.S. only)q 11-1 The Total Childq 11-2 Gifted Girlsq 11-3 Asynchronyq 11-4 Teaching Teachers

q Volume 11 All 4 Issues $40 -Save $16 (U.S. only)q 12-1 Millennium: Look Forward, Backq 12-2 Levels of Giftednessq 12-3 Technologyq 12-4 Nature vs. Nurture

q Volume 12 All 4 Issues $40 -Save $16 (U.S. only)q 13-1 Definitions of Giftednessq 13-2 Addressing Giftednessq 13-3 The �G� Wordq 13-4 Creativity

q Volume 13 All 4 Issues $40 -Save $16 (U.S. only) Volume 14-15 $16 ea. US-$25 International + S/Hq 14-1 Options in Educationq 14-2 Twice Exceptionalq 14-3 Social Emotionalq 14-4 Critical Thinkingq 15-1 Differentiation

q 15-2 Dumbing Down of Giftedness

Understanding Our Gifted Back Issues

800-494-6178 Call for Out-of-Print Pricing - Vol. 1-3 [email protected]

U.S. only - until May 30, 2003 All Orders - Add Ship/Handling

Order Form○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

Understanding Our Gifted Subscription - Published QuarterlySAVE - ONLINE SUB - $32 Individual/$46 Institution Online $________(Institutions - up to 5 subscribers - $99) $________PRINT SUB U.S. $37 Individual-$49 Institution Print $________International $58 Individual-$68 Institution U.S. Funds Print $________Back Issues Vol. 4-8 $8 each/Vol. 9-13 $14 each/Vol.14-15 $16 $________(Special Volume Set pricing: 4-8 $30/6 issues / 9-13 $40/6 issues)International Vol. 4-8 $15 each/Vol. 9-13 $20 each/Vol.14-15 $25 U.S. $__________Special Back Issue Offer thru May 30, 2003 - Check Issues above $________

Professional Development Series Books__ Affective Education $14.25 $__________ Parent Education $14.25 ___Spanish Version $10 $__________ Teens With Talent $15.45 $__________ Smarter Kids $15.45 ___All 4 Books SPECIAL $49.95 $________

Conference Tapes (Audio tapes unless CD is specified)__ Neither Freak nor Geek- Delisle $18 (CD) $__________ Social/Emotional-Betts/ADD-Dorry $10 $__________ Perfectionism-Fertig $10 $__________ Underserved Gifted-Smutny $10 $__________ Giftedness & the Visual Learner-Freed $10 $__________ Learning Styles/ADD-Freed $10 _Special Both Freed Tapes $20 $__________G/T & CSAP: Succeeding at Both-Scott Plus side 2: Underserved Gifted-Smutny $10 $________

Shipping/Handling $________U.S.: 10%-$5 minimum /Canada: 20%-$10 minimum (all publications)

All other countries: 20%-$25 minimum (all publications)

Total Enclosed U.S. Funds $________

Name

Institution

Address

City

State or Province

Zip or Postal Code

Country

E-mail

VISA/MasterCard #

Expiration

P.O. #

Mail to: Open Space CommunicationsP.O. Box 18268, Boulder, CO 80308

Place your order on our web:www.openspacecomm.com

REQUIRED FOR ONLINE SUBSCRIPTIONS


Columns

A few years ago, in an article I wrote forUnderstanding Our Gifted (Gross, 1998), I retold awonderful story first devised by James Gallagher.In his keynote address at the 1997 WorldConference on Gifted and Talented Children,Gallagher compared teachers of the gifted to doc-tors diagnosing a condition and prescribing a rem-edy. He described the “one-size-fits-all” genericgifted program as “a non-therapeutic dose”(Gallagher, 1997).

He asked the audience to imagine that a drug willtreat a certain medical condition, but that patientswith different degrees of the condition require dif-ferent doses. One hospital, for budgetary reasons,administers the same dose to each patient. Forsome patients this is the correct therapy, and theywill recover. For others, it will be a non-therapeuticdose. They are being treated, but at a leveldesigned for patients whose situation is much lesssevere. Put simply, the treatment will not help. It iscosmetic, at best.

In his address, Gallagher paid homage to the workof Julian Stanley who founded the Study ofMathematically Precocious Youth at JohnsHopkins University. Stanley developed the diag-nostic-prescriptive model of identification andprogramming for mathematically gifted youth(Stanley, 1991). Using this model, educators notonly note the existence of high ability in math, butalso measure the full extent of the ability. An indi-vidual educational program is then developedbased on the needs of the individual child.

Teachers working with children with disabilitiesrecognize the importance of accurately diagnosingnot only the presence of the disabling condition,but also its level of severity. For example, teachersworking with hearing impaired students recognize

levels of hearing impairment. A child with a mildhearing impairment can cope quite happily withinthe regular classroom as long as his teacher isaware of his impairment and is prepared to makecertain adjustments. The child with moderatehearing impairment usually requires medicalintervention—the prescription of a hearing aidspecifically tailored to her needs—as well as a sup-portive group of classmates and a sensitive, flexi-ble teacher who will provide special speech andlanguage assistance. However, children who havesevere or profound degrees of hearing impairmentrequire much more than sound amplification andgeneral assistance. These children must also betrained in combinations of lip-reading, cuedspeech, and either signing or finger spelling. Inaddition, both the curriculum and the teachingmethodologies used in the classes in which theyare placed must be adapted to their special needs.

Teachers of hearing impaired children and chil-dren with intellectual disabilities do not treat thesechildren the same. No one would seriously suggestthat a profoundly intellectually challenged childshould be expected to master the curriculum thatwould be presented to a student with a mild intel-lectual challenge. Until recently, however, teachersand psychologists working with intellectually gift-ed students have been trapped in precisely thismind-set. We have developed identification strate-gies, designed curricula, and established specialprograms based on the assumption that whatworks for a moderately gifted student will alsowork for the extremely gifted. Fortunately, we arebeginning to acknowledge the need to recognizedegrees, as well as types, of giftedness.

To define the therapeutic dose for a gifted and tal-ented student, we must first diagnose the level ofgiftedness. In the case of intellectual giftedness, IQ,aptitude, and achievement, testing can assist usgreatly.

I have a severe hearing impairment. The conditionitself is easy to diagnose. The level of the condition,which is much more important, is diagnosed byaudiometric testing. It is that more sophisticateddiagnosis which dictates the treatment. I wear spe-cially designed hearing aids and use lip-reading.

At the University of New South Wales, where Iteach, we have a highly successful undergraduateteacher-training program. As one element of thisprogram, every one of our undergraduate studentstakes a 14-week course in gifted education. I havefound my own disability very useful in explainingto these young teachers-to-be that identifying spe-cial needs students, whether they are physicallydisabled, intellectually challenged, or gifted, is notlabeling them, but is rather the first step or diagno-

MusingsGiftedness, Labeling, and the

Non-Therapeutic Dose

Miraca U.M. Gross


Musings continued

sis in the process. After a student has been identi-fied, it is important to prescribe a suitable inter-vention. I tell them a few simple things I needthem to do so that we can work together optimal-ly. For example, I ask them to raise their hand atthe same time they ask a question, so that I canswiftly see where the voice is coming from andbring my lip-reading skills into play to augmentthe assistance from my hearing aids. I explain thatthey are not “labeling” me by acknowledging myhearing impairment (and the level of it); ratherthey are assisting me by recognizing and respond-ing to it. Similarly, we do not “label” a child if weacknowledge that she is gifted, recognize the levelof her gifts, and respond with appropriate inter-ventions. We label (which might be construed neg-atively) only when we note someone’s ability ordisability and refuse to do anything about it!

Levels of intellectual giftedness, as defined by IQranges, and the level of prevalence of such chil-dren in the general population, appear below.

It is important to note that these levels are notintended as “cut-off points.” We acknowledge thatthere is little difference between a child of IQ 129and one of IQ 130. There is, however, a significantdifference in terms of the number of children whoappear in each of the different IQ ranges. The childof IQ 125 has much greater access to age-peers ofsimilar ability than do children who have IQs thatare higher.

The Federal Government of Australia recently con-ducted a nationwide inquiry into the status of edu-cation for gifted and talented students. The pub-lished report strongly endorsed the need toacknowledge levels of giftedness. “Identifying thevariety of abilities is not about creating divisions; itis about planning interventions intelligently, hav-ing regard to the different degrees of need”(Commonwealth of Australia, 2001).

Needs of Gifted and Talented StudentsThe academic and social needs of gifted and tal-ented students are much like the needs of all stu-dents. All children have the need for intellectualchallenge and stimulation. This means being pre-sented with work that is neither too difficult nortoo easy but is set at a level slightly beyond thelevel one has reached—the “zone of proximaldevelopment” (Vygotsky, 1978).

The curriculum we develop for children in schoolis, in general, set at levels appropriate to the major-ity of students—the 70 percent or so who clusteraround the average for their age in terms of learn-ing readiness. Even for mildly gifted students, thepace of this curriculum is usually too slow and thelevel undemanding. The provision of a curriculumdifferentiated in pace, level, and degree of abstrac-tion is essential if these children are to find any realdegree of satisfaction in schoolwork.

The further along the hierarchy of levels of gifted-ness on which the child is placed, the more urgentthe need for ability grouping and/or acceleration.Such programs provide the vehicle for a moreeffectively differentiated curriculum and also pro-vide gifted children with opportunities for goodpeer relationships. A child of IQ 140 who is edu-cated solely in the regular classroom may passthrough her elementary schooling without everfinding a classmate who shares her abilities orinterests.

I have just completed the second edition of mybook Exceptionally Gifted Children, which tells thestory of the second decade (1993-2003) of my lon-gitudinal study of 60 exceptionally and profound-ly gifted Australians of IQ 160+. I have followedthese young people since their primary schoolyears. The majority are now in their 20s. Sixteen ofthese remarkably gifted young people enjoyedcarefully planned, individually designed pro-grams of radical acceleration, graduating fromhigh school three or more years earlier than usual.In every case, the program was a success, giving

Level IQ Range Prevalence

Mildly/basically gifted 115 - 129 1:6 - 1:40Moderately gifted 130 - 144 1:40 - 1:1000Highly gifted 145 - 159 1:1000 - 1:10,000Exceptionally gifted 160 - 179 1:10,000 - 1:1 millionProfoundly gifted 180+ Fewer than 1:1 million


the student access both to a stimulating, fast-pacedcurriculum and to the companionship of otheryoung people at similar stages of development. Allof these students have experienced high levels ofacademic and social success at school, university,and in adult life, and not one of the 16 regrets hisaccelerated program.

Ironically, every one of the 60 young people hadthe intellectual and academic ability and the socialand emotional maturity to benefit from such a pro-gram. What held some of them back, given thateach had been assessed in childhood as havinglevels of intellectual ability that placed them at orbeyond 1 in 10,000 of their age-peers? The shortanswer is that their teachers were either unwillingto accept the evidence of the ability and achieve-ment testing or unwilling to develop fully appro-priate interventions. Oh, they usually prescribedsomething, but it was often a non-therapeutic dose,designed for students with a much lower level ofgiftedness.

The identification of giftedness and the conse-quent modification of curriculum and program-ming must go hand in hand. To diagnose a needand then to refuse to prescribe appropriate inter-ventions is, indeed, no more than labeling. ❖

References

Commonwealth of Australia (2001). The Education of Gifted Children. Canberra: Commonwealth Government.

Gallagher, J.J. (1997). Educating Gifted Students in the Twenty-first Century. First A. Harry Passow Memorial Lecture, World Conference on the Education of Gifted and Talented Children, Seattle, July 30.

Gross, M.U.M. (1998). Issues in Assessing the Highly Gifted.Understanding Our Gifted, 10(2), 3-8.

Stanley, J.C. (1991). An Academic Model for Educating the Mathematically Talented. Gifted Child Quarterly, 35(1), 36-42.

Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversity Press.

Musings continued

The Affective SideGifted Identification

and the Call toAdvocacy

Jean Strop

When students receive the official label of “gifted,”parents often experience a myriad of emotionssuch as pride, relief, anxiety, concern, and some-times even panic. The distressing feelings general-ly arise because the adults believe the demands oftheir already difficult and uncharted role of par-enthood have now changed dramatically. After all,having an exceptional child can mean the need forexceptional parenting and, in turn, the need forexceptional teaching to assure exceptional learn-ing. If not cautious, this seemingly overwhelmingtask can lead to overzealous and non-productiveadvocacy. To assure productive responses, parentsneed to consider common pitfalls in adult advoca-cy attempts, and to develop a plan for supportingstudents to advocate for themselves.

Pitfalls to AvoidMost parents approach advocacy with the best ofintentions. Their student is unhappy or distressed,and they simply respond to fix the situation.However, ignoring the following issues can some-times cause these well-intentioned interventions togo awry:

1. Believing exceptionality is synonymous withentitlement. It is not unusual for parents toassume that if a student has been labeled gifted,that they now need an entirely different educa-tional approach. Sometimes, the student is receiv-ing very appropriate services before the labelingprocess occurs, so changes in programming are notneeded. Also, having the label does not automati-cally entitle that student to every option that isavailable for highly able and/or gifted students. Infact, gifted students have strengths, weaknesses,and special interests, just as all other students, andshould only be included in programming optionsthat meet the student’s needs.

2. Responding to the statement “I’m bored”

Miraca U.M. Gross is Professor of Gifted Education andDirector of the Gifted Education Research, Resource andInformation Centre (GERRIC) at the University of New SouthWales in Sydney, Australia.


Affective Side continued

without determining the meaning. Bright stu-dents learn early that the words, “I’m bored,” arepowerful, since they touch their parents’ greatestfear—that school programming is too slow orinadequate. However, parents need to know thatstudents utilize these words in a variety of situa-tions: when encountering a frustrating educationaltask, when motivation for completing a task is low,when a task is too difficult for the student to trulymaster, and/or when the task is, indeed, too easy.

3. Waiting for a crisis before advocating. Manytimes parents will address educational concerns athome for fear of being perceived as “pushy” byschool officials. Often these same parents willattempt to intervene if the situation reaches crisispotential. At this time parent emotions are at apeak, school officials may become defensive inresponse to the intense parent emotion, and thestudent is under extreme distress and wantingrelief. Irreparable damage ensues because thingsare said that cannot be retracted, decisions aremade to assuage the anger, and all parties feel “putupon” or at the very least, uncomfortable witheach other.

4. Pushing for a response from the schoolbefore all parties agree on “the issue.” Studentsoften express their distress at home while acting asif things are fine at school. In these instances it isnot unusual for the parents to be thinking aboutand addressing the issue for a while before itcomes to the attention of the school. By having ahead start on defining the problem, the parent maynot only come to the school with the issue defined,but also with potential solutions in mind. Thesesolutions may appear to fall on deaf ears becausethe parent has started the process at the solution-generating stage, and the school personnel haveyet to witness the problem. At this point it is nec-essary to step back to “agree on the problem orissue,” so all parties are willing and able to gener-ate solutions that best fit the defined issue.

5. Advocating from own issues or needs. Manyparents of gifted students had experiences inschool where they felt pain because their own edu-cational and/or emotional needs as gifted studentswere not appropriately met. It is extremely diffi-

cult for a parent to advocate from an objective andcooperative problem-solving stance unless theyare able to differentiate their needs, scars, andissues from those of their student.

6. Taking charge when it would be better if thestudent would do so. Sometimes it is more time-efficient for the adult to intervene when the stu-dent is perfectly able to do so. Unfortunately, step-ping in at this time can send inappropriate mes-sages to the student: “They can’t advocate forthemselves.” “They aren’t capable of solving theirown problems.” Or perhaps, “The situation ishopeless, and only an adult can attempt to effectchange.”

To avoid these pitfalls, it is best to follow a processfor determining when it is best for the adult tointervene and when it is best for the student to besupported to implement self-advocacy skills.

Process for Deciding ApproachTo make the decision about who is to advocate,four issues need to be addressed. First, the parentsand the students must talk to define the actualproblem or issue that is under consideration. Thenit is important to decide who owns the problem.An easy way to determine an answer is to ask,“Whose needs are not being met?” Then it isimportant to decide if the student, parent, or edu-cator ultimately holds the power to solve the issue.If, indeed, it is decided that the student has thepower to solve the problem, then the final issue toaddress is whether or not the student has the req-uisite skills to self-advocate.

Supporting Students to Become Self-AdvocatesToo often we tell students to become self-advo-cates before we assess if they possess all of theskills necessary to do so. In fact, students need fivekey skills:

1. Self-awareness. That is, they know theirstrengths, weaknesses, preferences, and needs.They are also able to recognize and label feelings,express their feelings, know what blocks their abil-ity to act, and know the difference between feel-ings, thoughts, and actions.

2. Self-regulation. Students with self-regulatoryskills maintain control of impulses and anger, cansoothe themselves and recover from negative emo-


Affective Side continued

tions or “blocks,” are able to seek help, and havethe ability to delay gratification.

3. Pro-social Behaviors. These students have adesire for positive relationships and will utilizegeneral rules of etiquette and assertiveness withadults and friends, alike. They have a desire andthe ability to initiate and maintain relationships,especially with adults. With some instruction, theyare able to understand the operating rules of rela-tionships and larger systems.

4. Empathy. Students with the capacity toempathize can both recognize and respond toemotions in others. They can take others’ perspec-tives and seek to understand and work with oth-ers.

5. Relationship Skills. If a student has the abilityto listen, to give and receive feedback, to negotiateand cooperate with others, and to compromise (ifnecessary), then she is ready to self-advocate.

To develop these skills, it is important to master allof the skills at the preceding level, before movingon to the next level. That is, it is hard to be able toself-regulate unless the student has self-awareness.Likewise, it is hard to have strong pro-social skillsif self-regulatory skills are not in place. Once therequisite skills are mastered, then an advocacyscript can be developed and practiced before thestudent attempts to work with his teachers. Thisrole-playing in a safe environment can serve as avehicle to receive constructive feedback, and candesensitize students to the discomfort and vulner-ability that arises when they begin to ask theirteachers for what they need.

For a younger student and when a student is anovice at attempting to self-advocate, it is some-times good for the parent to share with the teacherthat the student is working to develop these skillsand will soon be approaching him with a propos-al. Oftentimes this type of “heads-up” enables theeducator to listen better to the student and willsometimes maximize the possibility of success.This success can, in turn, serve as a positive rein-forcement to the student; that student is then morelikely to try self-advocacy in other situations.

Jean Strop is Counseling Coordinator and Gifted/TalentedResource Teacher at Cherry Creek High School, Colorado. She isa consultant and presenter on affective and academic programming for gifted and talented students.

Do not be taken aback! If you encourage your stu-dents to self-advocate at school, it will be a rela-tively short time before you find your studentapproaching you as you go about your dailyhousehold routines. When you hear the words,“Mom/Dad, is it a good time to talk?” you knowyou are in their scope as the next recipient of theskills and scripts you have so aptly practiced. Notto worry, you need only listen and respond. ❖


When states include gifted under special educa-tion, the reasons are generally administrative. Forsome states, it’s easier to provide guidance and/orfunding for gifted education under the umbrella ofspecial education.

Many states use a multistep approach to identifygifted students who need services tailored to theirintellectual abilities and capabilities. Frequently,one step is to screen all children, looking for stu-dents who perform or show potential for perform-ing at high levels of accomplishment in the areas ofsuperior cognitive ability, specific academic ability(mathematics, science, social studies, or read-ing/writing), creativity, or visual and performingarts.

Many districts use Howard Gardner’s Theory ofMultiple Intelligences (MI) (pzweb.harvard.edu/)as a framework for screening students. One of thebest-known MI assessment tools, particularly forscreening minority students, is the DiscoverAssessment (info-center.ccit.arizona.edu/~discover/assessment.htm).

Project SUMIT (Schools Using MultipleIntelligence Theory) is based at Harvard’s ProjectZero, where the seeds of MI Theory took root andbegan to grow into an educational model. SUMITseeks to identify, document, and promote effectiveimplementations of MI. By using their Web site(pzweb.harvard.edu/sumit/), you can see how dif-ferent schools use MI.

Other school districts use the Renzulli EnrichmentTriad model for screening gifted students.Renzulli’s model operates from a set of assump-tions regarding the definition and identification ofgiftedness. Rather than seeing any individual asgifted or potentially gifted, Renzulli suggests thatgiftedness should be seen in terms of the conver-gence of three traits: above average general ability,task commitment, and creativity. The RenzulliProgram is designed to provide enrichment activi-ties on a school-wide basis. The model wasdesigned specifically to help students identifyfields which might engage their interests and abil-ities and then to become absorbed by intensiveprojects. The students who show high ability, taskcommitment, and creativity are thought of as gift-ed. You will find an explanation of the Renzulli

Surfing the NetIdentification Tools

Sandra Berger

There may be as many identification methods andpractices for gifted education in the United Statesas there are school districts. Since questions Ireceive at the ERIC Clearinghouse on Disabilitiesand Gifted Education are often related to identifi-cation, this is a great opportunity to explain someof the confusing aspects of the process and providesome helpful Web sites.

Some federal legislation provides a broad defini-tion of gifted but does not mandate services or pro-grams (www.ed.gov/legislation/ESEA02/pg72.html).Without a federal law to protect the legal rights ofgifted children, the responsibility for such man-dates rests with the states. There are 32 states thatrequire school districts to identify gifted children,with 10 more using permissive language.Permissive language means that the state policymentions but does not require gifted identificationand rarely provides guidance or funding. Schooldistricts are allowed maximum latitude in select-ing identification methods. Eight states do noteven mention identification in their state policy orregulations. Some states that mandate identifica-tion do not mandate programs (e.g., Connecticut).It is critical that identification be a path to servingthe needs of gifted children. When a state man-dates identification but does not mandate services,it becomes an end in itself rather than the means toan end.

Of states that mandate identification, eight admin-ister gifted education under special education orthe Individuals with Disabilities Education Act(IDEA). This does not mean that the students orprograms are protected under IDEA unless the stu-dents have a disability that results in eligibility.


model atwww.aacps.org/aacps/boe/instr/CURR/tag/GTdefine.htm.

Recently, the Tennessee Initiative for GiftedEducation Reform (TIGER) conducted a nationalsurvey to determine the current status of giftededucation in each state(giftedtn.org/tiger/docs/tigersurvey2002.pdf).TIGER is a network of parents, educators, admin-istrators, legislators, and members of the generalpublic working to advocate for the appropriateeducation of all students, particularly those whoare gifted. The outcome of the survey was a 73-page report about how states manage gifted pro-grams, identify students, train teachers, and fundgifted education. In the document you will findanswers to questions like these:• Are school districts required to have an out-reach or gifted child find program?• Is the gifted assessment used to determine theinstructional level of students?• What is the earliest grade for mandated screen-ing?• Is the identification or services mandate anextension of IDEA?• Is identification mandated?• What percent of the student population isidentified?

Another helpful Web site for identification infor-mation is the ERIC Clearinghouse on Disabilitiesand Gifted Education. A Frequently AskedQuestion (FAQ), “Student Selection forGifted/Talented Programs,” provides some usefuldetails about the identification process used bystates (ericec.org/faq/gt-idpar.html).

Barriers to Appropriate IdentificationThe disproportionate underrepresentation of someracial and ethnic minority groups in gifted educa-tion has been an issue for more than 40 years.During the 70s and 80s, in my early days as a par-ent advocate, I recall school boards struggling overthis issue. At the time, one school board memberthought that the key was to provide extra fundingand that schools with large minority populationsshould receive a stipend. Recently, I heard the local

school board again discussing this issue and bring-ing up the same proposals. Obviously, dispropor-tionate underrepresentation is not going to beresolved easily. For a thorough analysis of thetopic, read Minority Students in Special and GiftedEducation, the report published by the NationalAcademies Press (www.nap.edu/catalog/10128.html).

Another barrier is changing definitions of intelli-gence, the concept on which giftedness is based.From Joe Renzulli to Howard Gardner, giftednesshas been recast into a malleable multidimensionalconcept, having evolved from a static monolithicconcept. When educators assume that giftedness ismultidimensional and choose screening methodsthat are non-biased, the selected student group islikely to be more heterogeneous than groups iden-tified by only an IQ test like the WISC.Appropriate identification relies on the use of mul-tiple criteria. Some states use specific instrumentsor tools to try to identify populations that are tra-ditionally underserved by gifted education. Othersuse performance-based assessment such as stu-dent portfolios. The best practices gather data frommultiple sources over a period of time, and requirethe teacher to use his or her expertise in setting upsituations that elicit gifted behavior.

Assessments Used to Identify Gifted StudentsHere are a few of the instruments and Web siteswhere you can read about various identificationinstruments. Keep in mind that states often usethese tests as part of a multiple assessment planand that the use of a single instrument may behighly inappropriate. Several state policies men-tion that children cannot be eliminated from eligi-bility for gifted services on the basis of one testscore. The way the policy is implemented variesamong states, but the intent clearly seeks to elimi-nate bias from the screening system.

GT Worldwww.gtworld.org/gttest.htm

Naglieri Non-verbal Ability Test (NNAT)Publisher: Harcourt Educational Measurementwww.hemweb.com/trophy/ability/nnat.htmNNAT is alleged to provide a culture-fair and lan-guage-free means of determining students’ non-verbal reasoning and problem-solving ability,regardless of language or educational or cultural

Surfing the Net continued


background. The test may be administered in agroup setting in about 30 minutes. It is frequentlyused with gifted and talented students who areeither non-English speakers or are just learningEnglish.

WISC III - Wechsler Intelligence Scale forChildren III Publisher: The Psychological Corporationwww.psychcorp.com.au/keyprod.htm#WechslerThe WISC III is an individual IQ test and is con-sidered the universal standard used by psycholo-gists to assess children from ages 6 to 16. The testis divided into two main sections: the Verbal Scale,which measures how well children understandwhat is said to them and how well they expressthemselves verbally and the Performance Scale,which measures the visual/motor tasks or nonver-bal areas such as spatial relationships.

Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale-4th Edition(SB-IV or V) Publisher: Riverside Publishing www.riverpub.com/products/clinical/sbis/home.htmlThe Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale is anotherindividual intelligence test used frequently by psy-chologists. It is a measure of global or generalintelligence and can be administered in much lesstime than the WISC. Scores of 132 and above areconsidered Very Superior. It is generally believedthat some of the subtests have a ceiling that ismuch too low for bright children, and many pro-fessionals believe that the Stanford-Binet has toofew subtests to be an accurate measure of intelli-gence for gifted children.

Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children (K-ABC): Mental Processing ScalesPublisher: American Guidance Servicewww.agsnet.com/The K-ABC measures intelligence (which it definesas the ability of children to process informationand solve problems) and achievement. It is indi-vidually administered and was developed in anattempt to minimize the influence of language andacquired facts and skills on the measurement of achild’s intellectual ability. Scores of 130 and aboveare categorized as Upper Extreme. It is one of the

few tests that can be used with children as youngas 2 years of age.

Slosson Intelligence Test—RevisedSlosson Educational Publicationswww.slosson.com/The Slosson is designed to provide a quick screen-ing measure of verbal intelligence and should beused in conjunction with other tests. It measuressix different categories with 187 oral questions. It isa question-and-answer test with no reading orwriting required and can provide useful informa-tion within limits. Since many gifted children arevisual spatial learners, this might not be the test ofchoice for a gifted population.

Raven Progressive Matrices Publisher: The Psychological Corporationhttp://www.jcravenltd.com/A non-verbal test designed to assess mental abilityvia problems concerning colored abstract figuresand designs. There are 36 test items. Individual orsmall group administration is necessary. Normsare available for several English groups. It is pur-ported to be culturally fair.

Leiter International Performance Scale-Revised Publisher: Stoelting Publishing www.riverpub.com/products/clinical/unit/unit_comp.htmlThe Leiter-R measures cognitive abilities in a non-verbal manner. This is good to use with those whomay be disadvantaged, non-English speaking,ESL, ADHD, or those with mental and motorimpairments. The assessment does not require ver-balization by either the examiner or subject. It issuitable for use with mentally retarded throughintellectually gifted subjects.

Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking: Figural(TTCT:F) www.proedinc.com/This highly reliable test is one of the most widelyused of its kind. The test requires student respons-es that reflect life experiences, mainly drawing orpictorial in nature. A small amount of writing isrequired of students when they are directed tolabel or name some of the pictures they havedrawn. The examiner may transcribe for childrenwho are not yet writing.



Gifted and Talented Evaluation Scales (GATES) Publisher: Pro-Edwww.proedinc.com/GATES is an innovative, quick approach for iden-tifying students ages 5 to 18 who are gifted and tal-ented. Based on the most current federal and statedefinitions, it satisfies the critical national need fora norm-referenced instrument that assesses thecharacteristics, skills, and talents of gifted stu-dents. GATES was normed in 1995 on a represen-tative national sample of over 1,000 persons whowere identified as gifted and talented.Characteristics of the normative group approxi-mate those for the 1990 census data relative to gen-der, geographic location, race, ethnicity, andsocioeconomic status.

Screening Assessment for Gifted Elementary andMiddle School Students (SAGES-2) Publisher: ProEdwww.proedinc.com/SAGES–2 is helpful in identifying gifted studentsin kindergarten through 8th grade. Its three sub-tests sample aspects of two of the most commonlyused areas for identifying gifted students: aptitudeand achievement.

The Otis-Lennon School Ability Test, SeventhEdition (OLSAT 7) Publisher: Harcourtwww.hemweb.com/trophy/ability/olsat7.htmThe OLSAT 7 measures school learning ability. It isoften administered with the Stanford 9 (seebelow), allowing testers to obtain comparisons ofstudents’ ability and achievement. This test cannotbe used as the sole instrument when screening forgiftedness.

Iowa Tests of Basic Skills (ITBS), Form ARiverside Publishing www.riverpub.com/products/group/itbs_a/home.htmlThe ITBS Form A measures the skills and achieve-ment of students from kindergarten through grade8. The ITBS provides an in-depth assessment ofstudents’ achievement of important educationalobjectives. Tests in reading, language arts, mathe-matics, social studies, science, and informationsources yield reliable and comprehensive informa-

tion, both about the development of students’skills and about their ability to think critically.

The Stanford Achievement Test Series, 9thEdition (SAT9).Publisher: Harcourt Educational Measurementwww.hemweb.com/trophy/achvtest/sat9view.htmThe SAT9 is a norm-referenced achievement testcovering all grades. The various subtests arealigned with national standards, projects, andmodels. The open-ended subtests are geared toinstructional objectives that are best measuredwith performance tasks and student-constructedresponses. The open-ended components can beused separately or as a supplement to the multi-ple-choice battery.

BJ Testing and Evaluation offers the Iowa andStanford tests for use by homeschooling families inassessing the academic achievement of their home-schooled students.www.bjup.com/services/testing/academic_testing/

[email protected]

The ideas expressed in this article are the author’s and do not neces-sarily represent the views of the CEC or ERIC Clearinghouse onDisabilities and Gifted Education. The URLs were accurate andworking when last checked. The Internet is a dynamic place, andchanges occur rapidly and without the server, the server might betemporarily down, or the URL might have changed. Try again lateror truncate the URL.


Sandra Berger is the Information Specialist for GiftedEducation at the ERIC Clearinghouse on Disabilities and GiftedEducation in Arlington, Virginia. She is the author of CollegePlanning for Gifted Students.


ParentSpaceCounseling the Gifted–Whose

Job Is It?

Sharon A. Freitas

Counseling and guidance may help gifted stu-dents develop as whole persons. So, who shouldtake on this job? Are counselors/psychologistsprepared to recognize the needs of the gifted in ourschools? What is the role of the educator (teacherand/or administrator)? What responsibility forguidance and counseling rests with theparent/guardian in the home?

Counselors and PsychologistsThe American Psychological Association currentlylists 42 divisions, none of which focus on the gift-ed. In some training institutions, counselors andpsychologists receive little or no training on theemotional development of the gifted; nor do theyperceive the need for such training. Those coun-selors willing to provide the support system need-ed for the gifted student must be attuned to differ-ences in the emotional as well as the intellectualsystems of the gifted. Resources such as role mod-els and mentors, as well as access to other giftedchildren, may help students learn and understandmore about themselves. In addition, counselorsmay act as initiators of the identification process,provide assessment data, and advocate for the gifted.

Educators Teachers of the gifted should be well informedabout the psychosocial needs of the gifted so theycan represent the students’ interests, promoteappropriate programs, and talk with others aboutgifted students’ special needs. The most criticalrole a teacher can play is that of the listener. Schooladministrators may fill many of these same rolesas the classroom teacher. In addition, they provideleadership to assure that appropriate programs arein place and running smoothly.

Parents/GuardiansThe parent/guardian plays an important role in

providing counseling for the gifted. The natureand extent of this parent/child counseling rela-tionship that evolves (or fails to evolve) is likely tohave a powerful impact on the child’s emotionaland personal-social development. Factors whichmay enhance or hinder the parent-child counsel-ing relationship include the parent’s understand-ing of behavioral traits associated with giftednesssuch as high energy, intense curiosity, less need forsleep, the need to question authority, and height-ened sensitivity in interpersonal relationships.Parents who are puzzled or confused about thesetraits need to seek out resources (reading lists,trained school personnel, and other parents) tohelp them become well acquainted with both themyths and the realities associated with gifted stu-dents.

There are three specific needs that all three groups(guidance staff, educators, and parents) shouldaddress when counseling gifted students. • Cognitive-academic––Gifted students need tounderstand what giftedness is and where it leads.They also need to understand their academic andcareer opportunities. • Personal-social––Gifted students need toexplore their motivations and then set both shortand long-term goals.• Experiential––Gifted students should partici-pate in out-of school activities that are task-orient-ed, domain-specific, real-world experiences whichclarify career interests and values.

Everyone associated with the gifted serves a coun-seling function of one type or another. However, asJoyce VanTassel-Baska states in Practical Guide toCounseling the Gifted in a School Setting (1990,Council for Exceptional Children), “Those seekinga recipe or a formula for what to do in 30 minuteswill be disappointed. Rather, the advice renderedreflects a need to develop an understanding aboutfacilitating gifted students’ affective growth overtime.”

Giftedness needs to be viewed as an emergingphenomenon and not as something you are butrather something you do. As people who make aneffort to bring out the best in someone else, par-ents, teachers, and counselors can contribute to thedevelopment of giftedness. ❖

Sharon A. Freitas became involved in gifted education as a par-ent, and then went on to become a gifted coordinator and coun-selor for 20 years.


Hot Off the Press

NOTE: The following books cannot be purchaseddirectly from Open Space Communications. Pleasecontact the publishers, local bookstores, orAmazon.com.To keep you informed, we offer a list of recently pub-lished books in the field of gifted education. It is not ourintention to endorse or offer value judgments of thesebooks, but merely to give you up-to-date information.We have included facts available to us at the time of ourpublication deadline.

• Creative Intelligence: Toward TheoreticalIntegration (Perspectives on Creativity)Editors: Donald Ambrose, Leonora Cohen,Abraham Tannenbaum2002, Hampton Press $29.95ISBN 1572734663

• Differentiating Instruction in the RegularClassroom: How to Reach and Teach All Learners,Grades 3-12Diane Heacox2002, Free Spirit Publishing $27.95ISBN 1575421054

Puts differentiation into everyday practice by pro-viding any teacher in any classroom with concepts,strategies and ready-to-use material.

• A Forgotten Voice: A Biography of Leta StetterHollingworthAnn G. Klein2002, Great Potential Press $15.40ISBN 0910707537

Documentation of the remarkable life of LetaStetter Hollingworth (1886-1939), psychologist,feminist, researcher, author, educator, and “Motherof Gifted Education.”

• Gifted Education: Identification and Provision(Resource Materials for Teachers)David George2002, David Fulton Publishing $25.95ISBN 1853469726

How to identify and make provision for gifted andtalented children, utilizing a multi-dimensionalview of ability and belief in educating the wholechild. Includes strategies for differentiation, think-ing skills, and subject-specific enrichment.

• Parenting and Teaching the GiftedRosemary Callard-Szulgit2003, Scarecrow Press $19.95ISBN 0810845296

• Rethinking Gifted EducationJames H. Borland2003, Teachers College Press $48

Essays by leading thinkers in gifted education andwriters outside the field. Authors examine, recon-sider, and challenge assumptions and beliefsunderlying theory and practice, providing aroadmap for current and future gifted educationprograms.

• Raisin’ Brains: Surviving My Smart FamilyKaren L.J. Isaacson2002, Great Potential Press $16ISBN 01919707545

Humorous, endearing stories in Erma Bombeck-style about the author’s family of 5 smart, creativechildren, ages 3-16

• The Survival Guide for Kids with LDGary Fisher & Rhoda Cummings2002, Free Spirit Publishing, $10.95ISBN 1575421194

Easy-to-read, ready-to-use learning disabilitiesguide written especially for kids. Solid tips andstrategies for getting along better in class, withfriends, and at home.

• Young, Gifted, and Black: Promoting HighAchievement Among African-American StudentsTheresa Perry2003, Beacon Press $17.50ISBN 0807031542

Three African-American intellectuals discuss theterms of the school reform debate, framed in largepart around the success and failure of African-American children in school. The authors arguethat understanding how children experience thestruggle of being black in America is essential toimproving how schools serve them. ❖


Alexinia BaldwinProfessorUniversity of Connecticut

Sandra BergerERIC Clearinghouse-Disabilities/GiftedCouncil for Exceptional Children, VA

Ernesto BernalEducational ConsultantVice President, San Antonio Gifted EducationFoundation, TX

George BettsProfessor of Special EducationGifted and Talented University of Northern Colorado

Barbara ClarkProfessorCalifornia State University

LeoNora CohenAssociate ProfessorOregon State University

James DelisleProfessorCo-Director, SENGKent State University, OH

John FeldhusenProfessorPurdue University, IN

Maurice D. FisherPublisherGifted Education Press, VA

Jerry FlackProfessor EmeritusUniversity of Colorado,Colorado Springs

Laura GoodmanConsultant & WriterBoulder, CO

Julie GonzalesEducational Consultant/Advocate, CO

Miraca GrossProfessor, Gifted EducationDirector, Gifted Education Research, Resource,and Information CentreUniversity of New South Wales, Australia

Pat HollingsworthUniversity School for Gifted ChildrenUniversity of Tulsa, OK

Frances A. KarnesProfessor, Special EducationDirector, Karnes Center for Gifted StudiesUniversity of Southern Mississippi

Elinor KatzAssociate ProfessorEducational LeadershipUniversity of Denver

Bertie KingoreProfessional Associates Publishing, TX

C. June MakerAssociate ProfessorUniversity of Arizona

Joel McIntoshPublisherPrufrock Press, TX

Garnet MillarProvincial Coordinator Guidance & CounselingAlberta Education, Canada

Sheri NowakCoordinator, Enrichment ServicesBlue Valley School DistrictOverland Park, KS

Rick OlenchakProfessor, Psychologist, DirectorUrban Talent Research InstituteUniversity of Houston, TX

Jeanette P. ParkerDirector, Center for Gifted EducationUniversity of Southwestern Louisiana,Lafayette

Ann RobinsonProfessorUniversity of Arkansas at Little Rock

Mark RuncoCalifornia State University, FullertonUniversity of Hawaii, Hilo

Ellie SchatzPresidentWisconsin Center for Academically Talented Youth

Beverly ShakleeProfessorGeorge Mason University, VA

Dorothy SiskDirector, Conn Chair for Gifted EducationLamar University, TX

Joan Franklin SmutnyDirector, Center for GiftedNational-Louis University, IL

Stuart A. TonemahPresidentAmerican Indian Research & Development, OK

E. Paul TorranceGeorgia Studies of Creative Behavior

Joyce VanTassel-BaskaProfessorCollege of William & Mary, VA

Sally WalkerExecutive DirectorIllinois Association for Gifted Children

Marilyn WallaceAcademic DirectorQuest Academy, IL

Susan WinebrennerEducation Consulting Service, CA

Editorial Advisory Board

Understanding Our Gifted (ISSN 1040-1350) is published quarterly by Open Space Communications, P.O. Box 18268, Boulder, CO 80308. Subscriptionsare $37 for 1 year: Institutions $49. International subscriptions are $58 U.S. funds; International Institutions $68. Online edition and back issues available. Thirdclass postage paid at Boulder, CO. For subscription address changes, send mailing label along with new address to Understanding Our Gifted eight weeksbefore moving. Material in Understanding Our Gifted can be copied for personal use only. No material can be reproduced for publication without permission.Appropriate credit must be given. Copyright 2003, Open Space Communications. All rights reserved. Indexed and abstracted in Current Index to Journals inEducation (CIJE), Exceptional Child Educational Resource (ECER) database, and Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) Clearinghouse onHandicapped and Gifted Children. (303)444-7020/ FAX(303)545-6505/ 800-494-6178. [email protected] www.openspacecomm.com www.our-gifted.com

PublisherDorothy Knopper

EditorCarol Fertig

Design/Desktop PublishingAnn Alexander Leggett

Editorial AssistanceJoan Franklin Smutny

Understanding Our Gifted encourages a wide rangeof viewpoints on education and the gifted. Authorshave the flexibility to express individual opinions,which are not necessarily those of the Editor,Publisher, or Editorial Advisory Board. We welcomereader feedback.

Order Form○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

Understanding Our Gifted Back IssuesVolume 4 q $8 eachq 4-1 Student Researchq 4-2 Technology and Educationq 4-3 Empowering Parentsq 4-4 Assessing the Giftedq 4-5 Collaborative Effortsq 4-6 Family RelationshipsVolume 5 q $8 eachq 5-1 Homeschoolingq 5-2 Promising Practicesq 5-3 Parent Advocacyq 5-5 Young Gifted Childq 5-5A Being Out of Syncq 5-6 Philosophy of GiftednessVolume 6 q $8 eachq 6-1 Valuing Parentsq 6-2 Excellence Revisitedq 6-3 Networkingq 6-4 Talent Searchesq 6-5 Attention Deficit Disordersq 6-6 MainstreamingVolume 7 q $8 eachq 7-1 Spectrum of Giftednessq 7-2 Update On Technologyq 7-3 Recognizing Gifted Childrenq 7-4 Secondary Gifted Studentsq 7-5 Exploring Creativityq 7-6 Mutual EducationVolume 8 q $8 eachq 8-1 Multicultural Issuesq 8-2 Gifted Students - Upper Elem./Middleq 8-3 The Visual Learnerq 8-4 Parenting & Teaching Gifted Childrenq 8-5 Global Connections for Gifted Studentsq 8-6 Affective Needs

Volume 9 q $14 eachq 9-1 Perfectionismq 9-2 Gifted Ed. & the Lawq 9-3 Inside Giftednessq 9-4 Learning DifferencesVolume 10 q $14 eachq 10-1 Educational Optionsq 10-2 Intelligence Revisitedq 10-3 Parenting & Advocacyq 10-4 CurriculumVolume 11 q $14 eachq 11-1 The Total Childq 11-2 Gifted Girlsq 11-3 Asynchronyq 11-4 Teaching TeachersVolume 12 q $14 eachq 12-1 Millenniumq 12-2 Levels of Giftednessq 12-3 Technologyq 12-4 Nature vs. NurtureVolume 13 q $14 eachq 13-1 Definitions of Giftednessq 13-2 Addressing Giftednessq 13-3 The “G” Wordq 13-4 CreativityVolume 14 q $16 eachq 14-1 Options in Educationq 14-2 Twice Exceptionalq 14-3 Social/Emotionalq 14-4 Critical ThinkingVolume 15 q $16 eachq 15-1 Differentiationq 15-2 Dumbing Down Giftedness

Leading Journal Since 1988

SAVE - ONLINE SUB - $32 Individual/$46 Institution Online $________(Institutions - up to 5 subscribers - $99) $________PRINT SUB U.S. $37 Individual-$49 Institution Print $________International $58 Individual-$68 Institution U.S. Funds Print $________Back Issues Vol. 4-8 $8 each/Vol. 9-13 $14 each/Vol.14-15 $16 $________(Special Volume Set pricing: 4-8 $30/6 issues / 9-13 $40/6 issues) $________International Vol. 4-8 $15 each/Vol. 9-13 $20 each/Vol.14-15 $25 U.S. $________

Professional Development Series Books__ Affective Education $14.25 $__________ Parent Education $14.25 ___Spanish Version $10 $__________ Teens With Talent $15.45 $__________ Smarter Kids $15.45 ___All 4 Books SPECIAL $49.95 $________

Conference Tapes (Audio tapes unless CD is specified)__ Neither Freak nor Geek- Delisle $18 (CD) $__________ Social/Emotional-Betts/ADD-Dorry $10 $__________ Perfectionism-Fertig $10 $__________ Underserved Gifted-Smutny $10 $__________ Giftedness & the Visual Learner-Freed $10 $__________ Learning Styles/ADD-Freed $10 _Special Both Freed Tapes $20 $__________G/T & CSAP: Succeeding at Both-Scott Plus side 2: Underserved Gifted-Smutny $10 $________

Shipping/Handling $________U.S.: 10%-$5 minimum /Canada: 20%-$10 minimum (all publications)

All other countries: 20%-$25 minimum (all publications)

Total Enclosed U.S. Funds $________

Name

Institution

Address

City

State or Province

Zip or Postal Code

Country

E-mail

VISA/MasterCard #

Expiration

P.O. #

Mail to: Open Space CommunicationsP.O. Box 18268, Boulder, CO 80308

Place your order on our web:www.openspacecomm.com

REQUIRED FOR ONLINE SUBSCRIPTIONS

800-494-6178 / Fax 303-545-6505

Subscribe and ReadUnderstanding Our Gifted

Online atwww.our-gifted.com

or order online: www.openspacecomm.com

Call for special Out-Of-Print pricing Volumes 1-3 / Add Shipping/Handling See Order Form

NEW! !Now available in CD format!

BEYOND GIFTEDNESS 10Conference Tape

Keynote Presentation Jim Delisle Neither Freak nor Geek:Social & Emotional Needs of Gifted Children

$18 + S/H

pen Space CommunicationsP.O. Box 18268Boulder, CO 80308

Log-on totheInternetanywhere,anytimeto read. . .

Understanding Our Gifted

SUBSCRIBE NOWAND SAVE!

Keynote Presentation Jim DelisleNeither Freak nor Geek:Social & Emotional Needs of Gifted Children


Jim DelisleNeither

Freak norGeek

Beyond Giftedness 10

NEW! !Now available in CD format!

From Beyond Giftedness 10 conference

$18 + S/Horder online:www.openspacecomm.com

Documents

Issue Focus: Identification - Our Gifted