Adams County Giftedness Case Study

In 2015, I wrote about my personal philosophy of the gifted learner. I stated in my paper that, “Giftedness is not a one, set definition. The definition of gifted must encompass intellect, ability, creative talent as well as emotional awareness. It cannot be micro-managed and be a “one size fits all” definition” (Dauber, 2015). People, who are gifted, need differentiation and opportunity to express, demonstrate and show their giftedness. Educators must be able to provide opportunities for the gifted learner to express his/her abilities and/or talents. Gifted students learn differently and require special educational experiences in order to grow academically and achieve their highest potential. Therefore, the education field must be able to understand not only the cognitive side of a gifted learner but the affective or social/emotional aspects too.

I evaluated the information in the document above based upon Moon’s (2013) nine measures to consider in comprehensive gifted education program. I think that FCCPS does a considerably good job addressing these nine guidelines. However, I believe they should consider more non-standardized materials and data while considering students for identification.

Mala Morrow is a gifted student. She was identified as being gifted after she scored in the 98 percentile on the Test of Cognitive Skills (TCS). She maintained an A average while she was enrolled in elementary school, now as a middle schooler she has a cumulative grade point average (GPA) of 3.9. Mala’s ethnicity is Indian. She is actively learning, English, German, and she is fluent in two different Arabic dialects. These attributes clearly define that Mala is properly labeled as a gifted and talented student.

One of the difficulties in identifying the needs of low-income students is the profound cultural barriers which exist that prevent their strengths and deficits from being identified. Children from low-income homes frequently have poorer vocabularies and a weaker basis of the type of knowledge that is frequently considered 'intelligence' on most forms of assessment. A low-income child's IQ may be high, even though he lacks a framework of accepted middle-class knowledge. "In January 2003, the National Academy of Sciences released a report on the seeming overrepresentation of minorities in special education and underrepresentation of those students in gifted education. The NRC reported that, nationwide, 7.47 percent of all white students and 9.9 percent of Asian students are placed in gifted programs. Meanwhile, 3.04 percent of African-American students, 3.57 percent of Hispanic students, and 4.86 percent of American Indian students are classified as gifted" (GT-minority identification, 2003, ERIC Clearinghouse). The discrepancy, the NAS believed, could not be solely explained by talent alone but was at least partially rooted in the methods of identifying students labeled as gifted. Biases in standardized and other tests identifying student strengths, combined with prejudices, however unintentional, amongst educators and administrators lead to under-identification of the gifted

When the students graduating from Northern’s Gifted Program were in elementary or middle school, they nervously took a test would make them eligible for the school’s reputable Gifted Program. At Northern, all students entering the grade 9 Gifted Program must be formally identified through the TDSB’s assessment of intellectual ability. In our Board, in order for a student to qualify for gifted education, his or her overall score must be higher than that of 98% of same age students; gifted students constitute the elite 98th percentile. TDSB gifted assessments such as the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children or Fourth Edition typically take about three hours to complete.

Adolescents face many developmental tasks: physically, cognitively, socially and emotionally. For example, puberty happens, intellectual interests expand, moral thinking happens, sense of identity is initiated, independence is worked towards, there is conflict with adults, and peer influence becomes an issue—to say the least. This particular read focuses on twelve west coast inner city students and the developmental and environmental tasks that impact their education. Professionals often use the word resilience, or suggest that students become resilient, without putting much thought into the difficulties that students must recover from.

A Gifted and talented (G/T) student” is “one who . . . exhibits high performance capability in an intellectual, creative, or artistic area, possesses an unusual capacity for leadership, or excels in a specific academic field” (Aldine ISD Board Policy Manual, 2014). The Texas Education Agency (TEA) provides a state plan, which outlines the standards for Texas schools to be in compliance. It also offers the educational opportunities these students should receive. In fact, there are performance measures for five aspects of G/T programs including student assessment, service design, curriculum and instruction, professional development, and family and community involvement. The plan assists districts in delivering these comprehensive services to

The purpose of the evaluation process is to determine whether the program objectives are being accomplished, to provide data for program development, and to ascertain whether the program has affected the student progress. Through the evaluation process in this gifted plan, formative and summative are to be used to gather data. Formative assessment is the process of collecting information about the programs while it is in progress in order to make better developments. Summative assessment is the process of making judgments about all the components of the program (Purcell, Eckert, & National Association for Gifted Children (U.S.), 2006).

As a principal I find the limitations to this program are within the scope and sequence. Although separated by grade level, there is no in-depth research of a subject. Critical thinking is not of the highest level; critical thinking is that of evaluation and not of creating. Another concern is that the scope and sequence is not detail and concise with project and research expectations. The way the current scope and sequence is written it leaves the teacher with the understanding that projects are optional and can be completed at any Bloom's level. I argue that if a student is nominated and invited to be in the Gifted and Talented Program their work needs to exceed that of their peers. Class work as well as research projects must meet a higher Depth of Knowledge (DOK).

Because of school-wide issue such as, funding, space, and staff availability, this may be the maximum amount of time that they can physically provide for pullout enrichment for gifted students. This is common, and in these cases, it is important to “ensure that the curricular and instructional experiences within the general education classroom are appropriate for the advanced needs of gifted students” (Brighton and Wiley, 2013, p.192). We know from the Lackland description, that their students are not receiving these educational opportunities in their general education classrooms because many of the students are displaying a lack of

A fifth grader may come in at a “second-grade level” and graduate at a “fourth-grade level,” which is a tremendous achievement on the part of the educators; however, because standardized testing fails to account for such circumstances, the entire year would be seen as a failure from the perspective of the state (Berger). To put it crudely, “poor schools can’t win at standardized testing” because students in areas of poverty start school academically behind and are unable to catch up as there is the lack of resources and funding (Broussard). On the other extreme, gifted students are also hurt by attempts to standardize education, for instance, with the No Child Left Behind Act, an act that many say has “failed our adolescents” (Steinberg). Teachers say that the legislation has resulted in a “race to the middle” that means “talented students have their potential squandered” as schools “[don’t] foster growth” (Weller). In effect, standardization attempts to remove individuality from learning and ignores that students have different capacities for learning, that some students may need more help while others need to be challenged above their grade level - instead it averages it all out to a “standard” that harms both

gifted students within those states, and are not consistent across the United States. “Seven states

After this thinking and research I know now that we must come together as a nation and reshape the school system. We must redefine what it means to be gifted, and what it means to be smart. Because whether you excel in Math and Science, English and History, or Art and Dance, everybody is a genius. But to achieve our full potential, and recognize this greatness, we must stop forcing fish to climb trees, and let them swim

Currently the Jacob K. Javits Gifted and Talented Students Act of 1988 is the only national law which directly addresses gifted children, and is the sole channel for federal funding of gifted education (Russo and Ford; Inman and Kirchner 10). The Act reinstated, expanded, and updated programs which had been cut, but it has several limitations (Russo and Ford). It does not address the needs of students or mandate creation of gifted programs (Inman and Kirchner 10; Russo and Ford). Instead, it allocates money, ranging from $0 to $11.2 million, for research grants (Inman and Kirchner 10). It also does not set “substantive or procedural due process safeguards” as IDEA does (Russo and Ford). Although the Act has great intentions, it can be ignored by states or districts which do not place priority on gifted students (Russo and Ford).

Using teachers to screen for potential gifted students gives a basis for more formal testing of the students. However, the district must first define their own requirements for a gifted program. Primarily, a higher than average IQ score, general good grades, leadership abilities, and creative abilities should be considered when looking to identify gifted students. While all of these characteristics are important, it is also important to note that students may not possess all of them, and may only have a gifted talent in one specific area of study. When a teacher suspects giftedness, they should refer the student to the guidance counselor or school psychologist, who can then set up a formal assessment to determine if the student has enough of the characteristics to qualify as gifted by the state. After students have been identified, it is then important to secure a GIEP (Gifted Individual Education Plan) and make greater opportunities available. However, as mentioned above, the first step is to use the tools described above to identify students in need of the gifted