Identifying Gifted Children

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.

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

Middle school is a period of transition for adolescents. Students are no longer the children were once were in elementary school; they are beginning to mature into the adults they will need to become. Gifted learners at the middle-school level face the same developmental and tasks tasks and challenges that their peers do. Yet, gifted learners also possess traits that are different from their peers, which often make them misunderstood or ignored. The need for teachers to identify these students and differentiate instruction in a way that addresses the needs of the gifted students in the classroom is becoming more crucial than ever.

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

Some people believe that intelligence is inherited through genes and that they never change. Giftedness is not one of the inherited talents that are possible to inherit. Giftedness has to be developed and practiced as the child grows out of their early years. They also believe that gifted students read all the time, wear glasses, and are most of the time called “nerds”. This is called stereotyping. Gifted comes in different varieties varying from great athletes, talkative or shy persons, or just normal individuals with gifts. Not one specific type of person is gifted. You might think of the word gifted as bad such as mentally gifted, physically gifted or just gifted in general in a bad

In a standardized curriculum, students become stressed because of the standards that are set. Students are not exploring, creating, or analyzing. Students are not developing their identity.

The second compliance standard we discussed was “Identified gifted/talented students are assured an array of learning opportunities that are commensurate with their abilities and that emphasize content in the four (4) foundation curricular areas.” She stated that the G/T students are given additional challenging and creative opportunities to master the content. Furthermore, G/T teachers are required to demonstrate the ways they facilitate the differentiated content for these students. This includes participating in projects and fairs, taking field trips, and encouraging student-centered instruction. The last standard we discussed was “A minimum of thirty (30) clock hours of professional development . . . required for teachers who provide instruction and services that are a part of the district’s defined gifted/talented services.” She mentioned that Plummer Middle School provides adequate staff developments for educators who are also given a deadline to complete their certification. Teachers are well informed about opportunities to improve professionally and the principal is keen on allowing them to attend these activities (Texas Education Agency, 2009; M. Studer, personal communication, February 16, 2017).

Brice, A. E., Shaunessy, E., Hughes, C., McHatton, P. A., & Ratliff, M. A. (2008). What Language Discourse Tells Us About Bilingual Adolescents: A Study of Students in Gifted Programs and Students in General Education Programs. Journal For The Education Of The Gifted, 32(1), 7-33.

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

The Common Core curriculum negatively affects students, because it limits their ability to learn in a creative way. An example of how the standards limit creativity is illustrated by this teacher’s testimony, “I once saw an eighth grader who was on the verge of being tossed out of his middle school, even though he was one of the brightest kids there. When asked why he was failing, he said, “Why should I be doing the same frickin ' thing since I was in third grade?”

Implementation of the Gifted and Talented program is headed by Stephanie Cantu. She requires rigorous standards to be met by teachers, students, and parents. If a parent fails to meet a deadline or sign paperwork their student will not qualify for testing that academic year. Testing will be done the following year if the next grade level teacher nominates that student. Students, if accepted into the Gifted and Talented program, will remain in the program unless their grades fail to meet expectations, they exit or request a furlough..

Students desire to be active participants in their learning. This drive can be promoted when students are allowed to explore

An effective curriculum depends on its design. When developing and planning a curriculum, educators must focus on student success. According to Danielson (2002), “educators follow clearly defined steps that are designed to link the local curriculum to state and district content standards” (p. 81). Once a state has established a Standard Course of Study, educators can design a curriculum that will provide the most appropriate education possible for the diverse learners in that state. This will prepare students to become successful, contributing members in a 21st century society and

In fact, “skeptics have begun to wonder if the effort to raise standards for all students through high-stakes testing initiatives has too steep a price, including a narrowing of the curriculum and a deemphasis on curricular depth, an abandonment of constructivist-type activities that give meaning to learning, and a curtailment of extracurricular activities” (Moon, Callahan, and Tomlinson 1). Limiting the educators’ autonomy prevents them from being able to evaluate the needs of each student and structure their classroom and lesson plans in a manner that will help all of the students to gain the best possible outcomes in their academic careers. Students have different styles of learning, varying family structures and support, as well as different interests that can all effect how they learn. Standardizing the classroom removes the educators’ abilities to use their training to address these differences.

Before the 1950s, most educators and school systems tended to follow Louis Terman’s example and based most decisions about gifted individuals on IQ and scholastic achievement scores. Standardized group intelligence tests, such as California Test of Mental Maturity, were often used to determine IQ. In these tests, educators were looking for exceptional ability in verbal or performance IQ, or a combination of the two. For the final identification, individual IQ tests such as the Wechsler scales and the Stanford Binet were used. Most school systems around this time considered an IQ of 130 or above to fall in the "gifted" range. This information comes from a book by Frederick B. Tuttle, Laurence A. Becker, and Joan A. Sousa (48).