ERIC EJ720377: A 21st-Century Model for Identifying Students for Gifted and Talented Programs in Light of National Conditions: An Emphasis on Race and Ethnicity

2005·0.97 MB·English

by  ERIC

A 21st-Century Model for Identifying Students
for Gifted and Talented Programs in Light of National
Conditions: An Emphasis on Race and Ethnicity
by Thomas Oakland and Eric Rossen
S
chools began providing serv- GT programs are intended for gap between the Soviet Union and
ices for gifted and talented students who display exceptional U.S. in science and technology. Prior
(GT) students in the 1860s qualities, whose needs are not suffi- to the Act’s ratification, only six states
(DeLeon & VandenBox, 1985). ciently served in regular education had legislation addressing the needs
However, GT programs in public programs, and are likely to benefit of GT students. With NDEA fund-
schools did not become common in from special education and related ing, services for GT students reached
the United States (U.S.) until about services. Although GT programs pre- an all time high and were found in all
100 years later. Terman’s (1925) sumably are intended to meet stu- states (DeLeon & VandenBox, 1985).
scholarship helped establish standards dents’ needs, support for the
for GT programs when he identified programs is highly dependent on Legal Basis for GT
intelligence as an important, perhaps whether they meet local, state, and Programs
the most important, marker of gifted national needs.
students, and he suggested they The federal government high- The federal government has
should score among the top 2% on lighted the importance of educating offered several definitions for GT stu-
nationally standardized intelligence GT children following the Soviet dents. The Marland Report
tests. These standards for identifica- Union’s launch of its first satellite in (Marland, 1972) may have had the
tion continue in many locations. For 1957. Congress passed and the most influence on GT programs
example, 73% of school districts rely President implemented the National (Bireley, 1995). It listed six qualities
on standardized measures of cognitive Defense Education Act (NDEA) in that often are cited as options for GT
abilities when identifying GT stu- an effort to educate exceptional stu- programs: general intellectual abili-
dents (Heward, 2000). dents for the purpose of closing the ties, specific academic aptitudes, cre-
56 fall 2005 • vol 28, no 4
A 21st-Century Model forIdentifying Students for Gifted and Talented Programs
ative or productive thinking, leader- impoverished, and otherwise at-risk leadership, and/or performing and
ship ability, ability in visual or per- students. Note that no federal defini- visual arts) before making their selec-
forming arts, and psychomotor tion requires the use of national tions (Heward, 2000).
abilities. A 1998 survey found a num- norms when selecting GT students Changes within the U.S., includ-
ber of states omitted the psychomotor for GT programs. ing its public education system, chal-
abilities category in their definition Education is largely a state func- lenge the manner in which districts
(Shaunessy, 2003). tion. Thus, federal definitions may be offer GT services. Issues pertaining to
The Javits Act (1988), derived adapted by individual states, resulting possible program changes are dis-
from the Elementary and Secondary in differences in state definitions cussed below.
Education Act, underscored the (Shaunessy, 2003).
importance of “high achievement capa- Race/Ethnicity
bility in areas such as intellectual, creative, Current Status and Social Class
artistic, or leadership capacity, or in spe- of Programs for GT
cific academic fields” (National
Students The U.S. is a nation composed
Association for Gifted Children,
largely of immigrants or their ances-
2004).
An estimated 81% of school dis- tors. People from more than 220
The most current definition
tricts in the United States (currently) countries reside temporarily or per-
(USDE, 1993) significantly broadens
offer GT services (Mansfield & manently here. Immigration contin-
the scope of GT programs and is
Farris, 1992). Approximately 37 ues, with more than 15% of the U.S.
intended to embrace more students of
states currently have legislation for population having entered the coun-
color and those from low-income
GT education, while only 26 states try within the last 10 years (United
families.
have full or partial mandates to serve States Census Bureau, 2001a,
Children and youth with out-
GT students (Information Center on 2001b).
standing talent perform or show the
Disabilities and Gifted Education, In many nations, students from
potential for performing at remark-
2002). Although the process used to middle class homes generally attend
ably high levels of accomplishment identify GT students may differ private schools, and students from
when compared with others of their somewhat between school districts, it lower class homes generally attend
age, experience, or environment. typically relies on GT committees public schools. In contrast, the U.S.
These children and youth exhibit composed of teachers, counselors, strives to have its public school sys-
high performance capacity in intellec- and administrators to establish both tem serve students from every class
tual, creative, and/or artistic areas, the process and standards for GT and race/ethnicity. The proportion of
and unusual leadership capacity, or identification. Although some school a school district’s resources provided
excel in specific academic fields. They districts identify students in kinder- to students who differ by social class,
require services or activities not ordi- garten, most initially identify stu- race/ethnicity, and thus by educa-
narily provided by the schools. dents in grades 2 through 4. tional need has been used as an index
Outstanding talents are present in The process initially depends of its commitment to this important
children and youth from all cultural heavily on teachers nominating stu- principle. Black and Hispanic stu-
groups, across all economic strata, dents they believe have not been dents generally have received a
and in all areas of human endeavor served sufficiently in regular education smaller portion of resources devoted
(USDE, 1993). programs and who are likely to benefit to GT education than others.
Its emphasis on potential and from special education and related Students from most minority
capacity for performing at remarkably services. Parents and peers also may be groups typically are underrepresented
high levels together with the expecta- invited to participate in this nomina- in GT programs. When examined in
tion that children and youth from all tion process. GT committees typically closer detail, we find that, compared
cultural groups and across all economic consider existing data (e.g., class to White students, Asian/Pacific
strata will be included in GT pro- grades, work samples, teacher reports) Islanders are one third more likely to
grams underscores the desire of the and collect additional information on be in GT programs, while Blacks and
federal government to be more the nominees (e.g., from measures of Hispanics are less than half as likely to
responsive to the needs of minority, intelligence, achievement, creativity, be in such programs (National
gifted child today 57
A 21st-Century Model forIdentifying Students for Gifted and Talented Programs
the proportion
Research Council, 2002). More sources (Feldhusen & Heller, 1986).
specifically, approximately 7.5% and Teachers’ knowledge of students’ of students
10% of White and Asian students achievement is especially keen.
receiving GT
respectively are identified for place- Although teachers serve as an
ment in gifted programs. However, invaluable resource, they may not be services is
approximately 3% and 3.5% of Black properly engaged in the nominating
inconsistent with
and Hispanic students are identified process (Ford, 1996) and may be
as gifted (Information Center on biased when estimating academic current national
Disabilities and Gifted Education, potential among students who differ
2003). Thus, the proportion of stu- by race/ethnicity (National Research population
dents receiving GT services is incon- Council, 2002). Moreover, teachers
distributions
sistent with current national who serve the poorest students may
population distributions and their be the least qualified (Associated and their trends.
trends. The relatively small percent of Press, 2004). Exclusive reliance on
Black and Hispanic students engaged teacher nominations may contribute
1994; National Research Council,
in GT programs is a concern to edu- to underrepresentation of minority
2002; Shore, Cornell, Robinson, &
cators and others nationally (National
students. Reliance on parents of
Ward, 1991), with Blacks and
Research Council, 2002).
minority children also may have its
Hispanics scoring lower than
limitations in that their referral rates
Asian/Pacific Islanders and Whites
Possible Causes
are lower than those of White parents
(Jensen, 1980; Sattler, 2001). As a
for Racial/Ethnic (National Research Council, 2002).
result, programs that prioritize intel-
Disparities A process that allows self- and peer- lectual abilities and rely heavily on
nominations helps broaden the nom- intelligence test data are likely to have
The lower percentage of Black inated pool somewhat. fewer Black and Hispanic students
and Hispanic students in GT pro- than those that focus on other quali-
The Grade in Which
grams is due to multiple causes, ties (Ford, 1996). Nomination meth-
the Nomination Process Begins
including failure to be nominated, ods based on specific educational
the grade in which students first are needs seemingly lead to greater racial-
nominated, the qualities that consti- The grade in which students first ethnic equity (National Research
tute the GT program, information are nominated also may impact the Council, 2002).
number of minority students nomi-
considered during the screening
process, and the use of national nated for and thus included in GT Qualities That Are Screened
norms. These five issues are reviewed programs. More minority students
below. are identified when the identification Once nominated, students typi-
process focuses on students in the cally are examined in some detail.
Failure to Be Nominated lower grades than in the higher grades Ideally, the identification process mir-
(National Research Council, 2002). rors the activities and goals of the GT
The nomination process has a This seemingly holds true whether program (Ford, 1996).
significant impact on disproportion- standardized tests or checklists based The screening process often relies
ate representation. Those not nomi- on personal characteristics are used. heavily on intelligence test data.
nated typically are not considered by Intelligence and achievement test
the GT committee and thus are not Qualities That Constitute data correlate highly and thus are
eligible for GT programs. the GT Program used in GT programs to assist in
Teachers have the most contact identifying able students. The corre-
with students, are most knowledge- Tests of intelligence are used lation between intelligence and
able about them, and typically can widely to screen GT students. Data achievement is approximately .50
provide more comprehensive infor- from these tests generally display reli- (Sattler, 2001). Thus, approximately
mation about student performance able and measurable racial-ethnic dif- 25% of the variance associated with
than that obtainable from other ferences (Herrnstein & Murray, achievement is attributable to intelli-
58 fall 2005 • vol 28, no 4
A 21st-Century Model forIdentifying Students for Gifted and Talented Programs
gence. This figure, 25%, although scholastic performance and the quali- students often adjust their criteria for
substantial, indicates 75% of the vari- ties students bring to schools. admission into GT programs, know-
ance associated with achievement is Substantial differences in achieve- ing that their more able students are
attributable to qualities other than ment exist between states, presum- not well served in many regular edu-
intelligence. Moreover, measures of ably due to such qualities as cation classes. The use of lower cut
intelligence provide little direct infor- differences in race, social class, school scores is one method to adjust
mation about one’s passion for learn- resources, and curriculum (Lee, national norms to better reflect loca-
ing, persistence, learning styles and 1998). tion conditions. For example, cities
strategies, and other qualities that For example, scores from the that have large numbers of low per-
may contribute to academic success. Scholastic Ability Test are consider- forming students may establish lower
In that intelligence test data tend ably higher in some states (e.g., North cut scores on intelligence test data for
to be lower for Black and Hispanic Dakota and Iowa) than in others GT program entrance (e.g., the 84th
students, reliance on them may pre- (e.g., Georgia and South Carolina; percentile rather than the 97th or
clude otherwise qualified students National Center for Education 98th percentiles). Thus, for them, the
from being selected for GT programs Statistics, 2001). Students in some use of local rather than national stan-
(Rosenfield, 1983). Thus, the use of a states (e.g., Hawaii and Mississippi) dards is more viable.
broader set of data-gathering meth- read at significantly lower levels
ods (e.g., information from students, than those in other states (e.g., A Focus on Public
their parents, and peers acquired Connecticut and New Hampshire;
Education in the 21st
through interviews, checklists, behav- NAEP, 2001). Furthermore, achieve-
Century and Implications
ioral observations, and measures of ment tends to be higher in suburban
for GT Education
classroom performance) that focus on than in inner-city schools.
interactions among intellectual abili- Teachers base their instructional
ties, task commitment, and creativity activities on classroom and school As a publicly supported institu-
(Renzulli, 1978), special abilities, norms, not on national norms. For tion, public education is expected to
nonintellective qualities, environ- example, those teaching lower achiev- respond to high priority public needs
mental conditions (Tannenbaum, ing students generally modify their at all levels of government. At the fed-
1983), and on exceptional problem- activities by providing a less rigorous eral level, the President and Congress
solving skills (Maker, 1993; curriculum and slower paced instruc- expressed their clear support for
Sternberg, 1988) may be needed tion, as well as establishing lower aca- improving students’ academic devel-
when identifying minority students demic standards in light of classroom opment, initially in reading and later
(Boatman, Davis, & Benbow, 1995). norms. Students who display a pas- in mathematics and science, through
We also need to recognize the best sion for learning and high achieve- the No Child Left Behind Act
predictor of future performance is ment are not served well in these (NCLB; 2001). The driving force
prior performance on a similar task classrooms and thus are likely to need behind the NCLB and the NDEA is
(Sattler, 2001). Thus, future aca- a GT program. similar: to help ensure our country’s
demic attainment is best predicted Programs for GT students are future.
from information on past and current intended for students whose needs are Student achievement is lower in
academic attainment. not sufficiently served in the district’s the United States than in many other
regular education programs and who industrialized countries (Organisation
Use of National Norms may benefit from related services pro- for Economic Co-operation and
vided through local resources. In that Development, 2003). This poses a
The use of national norms for considerable differences exist nation- threat to our nation’s future and leads
selecting students for GT programs ally in the rigor of schools’ curricula to a clarion call for swift and decisive
assumes students’ qualities are nor- and students’ academic attainment, action to address this problem. While
mally distributed and somewhat effective GT programs develop poli- the NDEA was intended to develop
equally represented throughout our cies and practices based on local con- talent needed to combat the Soviet
states and cities. This assumption is ditions. States and cities that have threat, the NCLB is intended to
untenable. States and cities differ in large numbers of lower performing develop talent needed to maintain our
gifted child today 59
A 21st-Century Model forIdentifying Students for Gifted and Talented Programs
competitive edge internationally in force and thus high wage earners. In whether these standards are being met
education, science, technology, and contrast, states and cities with prevail- at state, school district, individual
the military and to create an educated ing low student achievement are school, and individual student levels.
workforce that will ensure good likely to have higher levels of unem- The academic performance of minor-
domestic jobs. Thus, GT programs ployment and a lower paid workforce. ity students is receiving close atten-
that support federal education efforts Their jobs increasingly are being out- tion.
under the NCLB by helping to sourced and performed by those While the act does not address
develop high levels of achievement working in low-income countries. GT programs directly, its implica-
among our most able students are The development of GT programs by tions for GT programs are clear. All
needed. state and local education agencies can programs within a school district can
The demographic nature of our help by providing a well-educated be expected to help support the
nation’s student population is chang- labor force for local needs and creat- NCLB’s goal to demonstrate annual
ing. Students increasingly are more ing a magnet that attracts quality yearly progress in students’ achieve-
likely to be minority, especially industry. ment. Due to budget constraints,
Hispanic, and to come from lower school districts are downsizing, even
income families (United States Implications for GT eliminating programs, including GT
Census Bureau, 2001a, 2001b). Programs in the 21st programs that do not support their
These changes may foretell lower lev- Century major goals. Thus, to survive, GT
els of academic achievement among programs may need to emphasize
students in light of well-established achievement and to de-emphasize
The promotion of students’ aca-
group differences in intellectual and intellectual ability, creativity, leader-
demic and civic development, as well
academic abilities (Herrnstein & ship, and/or performing and visual
as regular school attendance consti-
Murray, 1994; Jensen, 1980). arts. The strongest advocacy for GT
tutes education’s prevailing goals.
Educators are dedicated to the programs may be found in aligning
Among the three, the importance of
principle that quality education pro- them with more prevailing school
promoting students’ academic devel-
grams can materially improve programs (e.g., NCLB).
opment has been highlighted by the
achievement. There is support for the Intelligence also is likely to be de-
NCLB. Virtually every state and
belief that the combination of a class emphasized because it is somewhat
school district is committed to mak-
of passionate learners engaged in a tangential to achievement and
ing the goals of the NCLB a reality.
challenging and enriched curriculum highlights racial/ethnic differences.
The NCLB redefines the federal
presented by dedicated teachers who Moreover, in part because of a height-
role in K–12 education. Its broad goal
utilize appealing instructional meth- ened interest in achievement, the pro-
is to close the achievement gap
ods results in high levels of achieve- between low and high achieving (e.g., gram’s description together with
ment (Darling-Hammond, 2000). minority and majority) students methods for nominating and screening
Programs for GT students are needed while helping all students reach are likely to focus more on achieve-
to help improve achievement among higher state-approved academic stan- ment, and local norms will be used to
Black and Hispanic students, espe- dards through the following four select students.
cially those who are educated along- reform principles: research-based
side low achieving peers. reforms, accountability for results, Program Description
The need to be competitive edu- flexibility and increased local control,
cationally also is important at state and expanded parent options and The GT program should state its
and local levels. States and cities often education. goals clearly and develop nomination,
develop a reputation based on the The NCLB requires states to screening, and selection processes that
quality of their education as seen in develop high academic standards reflect its program goals. For exam-
student achievement. Locations along with annually administered ple, a GT program that has advanced
known for their academic excellence academic assessments aligned with levels of achievement as its goal, ini-
develop a positive reputation and are these standards. The assessments are tially in reading and later in math and
better able to attract and keep indus- to provide multiple, current, reliable, science, should develop nomination,
tries that require an educated work and valid data for use in evaluating screening, and selection methods that
60 fall 2005 • vol 28, no 4
GT programs
help ensure the identification of stu- & Lozano, 1984) and may decrease
dents who currently are not well are most likely the likelihood of bias when making
served academically in regular educa- to survive, even educational decisions (Stewart &
tion, who need special education and Kaminski, 2002). Although the
flourish, when
related services, and have the ability development of local norms may
they help support
to benefit from a GT program’s cur- require additional time and resources,
prevailing broader
ricula and instructional methods. their value is thought to outweigh
education efforts, their costs. Furthermore, various ref-
Nominations including the erences exist to assist in their develop-
ment (Habadank, 1995; Kaminski &
promotion
Given a district’s focus on Good, 1998; Stewart & Kaminski).
of achievement
achievement, its nomination process Steps for their calculation are out-
must help identify students who are in light of the lined in Table 1 on page 63.
not well served in regular education NCLB.
and need special education and Conclusions
related services. Reading is likely to
Literacy Skills (Stewart & Kaminski,
be prioritized first while math and
2002). Nationally normed achieve- GT programs are most likely to
science will follow. A nomination
ment measures have two possible lim- survive, even flourish, when they help
process that first informs, then edu-
itations: They may assess skills and support prevailing broader education
cates, and then encourages teachers,
abilities inconsistent with a school’s efforts, including the promotion of
parents, and students to become
curriculum, and they inform test achievement in light of the NCLB.
engaged is likely to identify students
users about how students compare to Furthermore, effective GT programs
who constitute a pool who deserve
peers nationally, not their peers develop policies and practices based
greater scrutiny through screening.
locally. Unless a school’s curriculum is on local conditions. Thus, efforts are
Moreover, the nomination process
consistent with the test content and needed that focus more on achieve-
should begin as early as feasible and
the school’s population is representa- ment and less on intelligence, leader-
no later than the second grade.
tive of the nation, the test informa- ship and/or the performing and visual
tion may be inadequate, even invalid. arts. Given a stronger emphasis on
Screening
Local norms may provide more achievement, existing methods used
accurate information when GT com-
to nominate and screen students for
The best predictor of future aca-
mittees are committed to identifying
GT programs should be reviewed and
demic success is one’s past and cur-
students who have not been served
may need to be revised. Additionally,
rent level of success. Thus, students’
sufficiently in regular education pro-
the use of local norms is likely to bet-
achievement should be screened
grams and who are likely to benefit
ter serve many districts. GGGGCCCCTTTT
closely. Additionally, qualities associ-
from special education and related
ated with achievement also should be services. Local norms provide more
References
screened, including students’ passion accurate information about how stu-
for learning, persistence, dedication, dents are performing within their own
and self-discipline. curriculum compared to their peers Associated Press. (2004, December
19). Report: Poor get least-fit
locally. Attempts to make local deci-
Norms sions based upon national compar- teachers. The Gainesville Sun.
isons should be questioned when a Bireley, M. (1995). Identifying high
We are likely to see a decided district’s characteristics differ from ability/high achievement gifted-
movement away from national norms prevailing national characteristics. ness. In J. L. Genshaft, M.
and toward the use of local norms. Local norms are likely to better Bireley, & C. L. Hollinger (Eds.),
For example, local norms have been predict success within a curriculum Serving gifted and talented stu-
developed using curriculum-based when making educational decisions dents: A resource for school person-
measures and pre-literacy skills from for students in a district that is cultur- nel (pp. 49–65). Austin, TX:
Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early ally/linguistically different (Kamphaus PRO-ED.
gifted child today 61
A 21st-Century Model forIdentifying Students for Gifted and Talented Programs
Boatman, T. A., Davis, K. G., & education (6th ed.). Upper Saddle Marland, S. (1972). Education of the
Benbow, C. P. (1995). Best prac- River, New Jersey NJ: Merrill. gifted and talented: Report to the
tices in gifted education. In A. Information Center on Disabilities Congress of the United States
Thomas, & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best and Gifted Education. (2002). by the U.S. Commissioner of
practices in school psychology III, GT—Legal issues. Retrieved Education. Washington, DC: U.S.
(pp. 1083–1096). Washington, December 11, 2004, from Government Printing House.
DC: National Association of National Assessment of Educational
http://ericec.org/faq/gt-legal.html
School Psychologists. Progress. (2001). National assess-
Information Center on Disabilities and
Darling-Hammond, L. (2000, ment of educational progress
Gifted Education. (2003). GT—
January 1). Teacher quality and achievement levels: 1992–1998 for
Minority identification. Retrieved
student achievement: A review of reading. Retrieved December 12,
December 11, 2004, from
state policy evidence. Education 2004, from http://www.nagb.org/
http://ericec.org/faq/gt-
Policy Analysis Archives, 8, 1.
pubs/readingbook.pdf
Retrieved February 9, 2004, from minor.html
National Association for Gifted
http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n1 Jensen, A. (1980). Bias in mental test-
Children. (2004). Javits program
DeLeon, P. H., & VandenBox, G. R. ing. New York: The Free Press.
description. Retrieved December 11,
(1985). Public policy and advo- Kamphaus, T., & Lozano, R. (1984).
2004, from http://www.nagc.org/
cacy on behalf of the gifted and Developing local norms for indi-
policy/javitsprogramdescription.h
talented. In F. D. Horowitze, & vidually administered tests. The
tml
M.O’Brien (Eds.), The gifted and School Psychology Review, 13, National Center for Education
talented: Developmental perspec- 491–498. Statistics. (2001). Scholastic
tives(pp. 409–435). Washington,
Kaminski, R. A., & Good, R. H. Assessment Test score averages, by
DC: American Psychological
(1998). Assessing early literacy state: 1987–88 to 2000–01.
Association.
skills in a problem-solving model: Retrieved February 4, 2003, from
Feldhusen, J. F., & Heller, K. A.
Dynamic indicators of basic early http://nces.ed.gov/programs/dige
(1986). Introduction. In K. A.
literacy skills. In M. R. Shinn st/d01/dt137.asp
Heller, & J. F. Feldhusen (Eds.),
(Ed.), Advanced applications of National Research Council. (2002).
Identifying and nurturing the
curriculum-based measurement Minority students in special and
gifted: An international perspective
(pp. 113–142). New York: gifted education. Washington,
(pp. 19–32). Lewiston, NY: Hans
Huber Publishers. Guilford. DC: National Academy Press.
No Child Left Behind Act, 20 U.S.C.
Ford, D. Y. (1996). Reversing under- Lee, J. (1998). State policy correlates
§6301 (2001).
achievement among gifted Black of the achievement gap among
Organisation for Economic Co-opera-
students: Promising practices and racial and social groups. Studies
tion and Development. (2003).
programs. New York: Teachers in Educational Evaluation,
Education at a glance: OECD
College Press. 24,137–152.
indicators. Paris: Author
Habadank, L. (1995). Developing Maker, C. J. (1993). Creativity, intel-
Renzulli, J. S. (1978). What makes
local norms for problem solving in
ligence, and problem solving: A
the schools. In A. Thomas, & J. giftedness?: Reexamining a defini-
definition and design for cross-
Grimes (Eds.), Best Practices tion. Phi Delta Kappan, 61,
cultural research and measure-
in School Psychology III 180–184.
ment related to giftedness. Gifted
(pp. 701–716). Bethesda, MD: Rosenfield, S. (1983). Assessment of
Education International, 9(2),
National Association of School the gifted child. In T. R.
68–77.
Psychologists. Kratochwill (Ed.), Advances in
Mansfield, W., & Farris, E. (1992).
Herrnstein, R. J., and Murray, C. school psychology: Vol. III
(1994). The bell curve: Intelligence Office for civil rights survey (pp. 141–174). Hillsdale, NJ:
and class structure in American life. redesign: A feasibility survey. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
New York: The Free Press. Retrieved February 5, 2004, from Sattler, J. (2001). Assessment of chil-
Heward, W. L. (2000). Exceptional http://nces.ed.gov/pubs92/92130 dren: Cognitive applications. San
children: An introduction to special .pdf Diego, CA: author.
62 fall 2005 • vol 28, no 4
A 21st-Century Model forIdentifying Students for Gifted and Talented Programs
Shaunessy, E. (2003). State policies
regarding gifted education. Gifted
T a b l e 1
Child Today, 26(3), 16–21.
Steps to the Development
Shore, B. M, Cornell, D. G.,
Robinson, A., & Ward, V. S. of Local Norms
(1991). Recommended practices in
gifted education: A critical analysis. 1. Administer a test to a sample of 100 or more
New York: Teachers College Press.
students.
Sternberg, R. (1988). The triarchic
mind: A new theory of human
2. Record the test scores.
intelligence. New York: Viking.
Stewart, L. H., & Kaminski, R.
(2002). Best practices in develop- 3. Calculate the number (i.e., frequency) of
ing local norms for academic students who obtained each possible score.
problem solving. In A. Thomas
and J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices
4. Calculate the cumulative frequency (a running
in school psychology IV
total) of students who obtain each score.
(pp. 737–752). Bethesda, MD:
National Association of School
Psychologists. 5. Calculate the cumulative percentage of
Tannenbaum, A. (1983). Gifted chil-
students who obtain each score by dividing the
dren: Psychological and educational
cumulative frequency by the total number of
perspectives. Upper Saddle River,
examinees, then multiplying by 100.
NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
Terman, L. M. (1925). Genetic studies
of genius: Vol. 1. Mental and phys- 6. Calculate the percentile corresponding to each
ical traits of a thousand gifted chil- test score by subtracting the cumulative
dren. Stanford, CA: Stanford
percentage from 100, then rounding to the
University Press.
nearest integer.
Title IV, Part B. [Jacob K. Javits Gifted
and Talented Students Education
Act of 1988], Elementary and For additional assistance, visit
Secondary Education Act of 1988, http://www.psionline.com/
20 U.S.C. º 3061 et seq.
howto_develop_norms.htm
United States Census Bureau.
(2001a). Overview of race: Census
2000 brief. Washington, DC:
Author.
United States Census Bureau.
(2001b). Percent of persons who are
foreign born: 2000. Washington,
DC: Author.
U.S. Department of Education, Office
of Educational Research and
Improvement. (1993). National
excellence: A case for developing
America’s talent. Washington, DC:
U.S. Government Printing Office.
gifted child today 63
Problem-Solving Competitions: Just the Solution!
continued from page 37 Kappan, 82, 243–247. Zealand Journal of Gifted
their problem-solving skills. With Kaplan, S. N. (2001). Layering differ- Education, 11/12(1), 21–26.
careful planning and facilitation, the entiated curriculum for the gifted Riley, T. L., & Karnes, F. A. (1999).
rewards extend beyond the prizes and talented. In F. A. Karnes, &
Forming partnerships with com-
given to first-place winners. Teachers, S. M. Bean (Eds.), Methods and
munities via competitions.
their students, and competition spon- materials for teaching the gifted
Journal of Secondary Gifted
sors can benefit. The greatest out- (pp. 133–158). Waco, TX:
Education, 10, 129–133.
comes, however, might be for the Prufrock Press.
Rimm, S. B. (1986). Underachievement
world of tomorrow, as students grap- Karnes, F. A., & Bean, S. M. (2004).
syndrome: Causes and cures.
ple with authentic problems faced The Process Skills Rating Scales—
today. Their solutions can make a dif- Revised. Waco, TX: Prufrock Watertown, WI: Apple Publishing
ference! GGGGCCCCTTTT Press. Company.
Karnes, F. A., & Riley, T. L. (2005). Roberts, J. L., & Roberts, R. A.
References Competitions for Talented Kids. (2005). Writing units that
Waco, TX: Prufrock Press. remove the learning ceiling. In F.
BEST Robotics. (2005). What is BEST? Karnes, F. A., & Stephens, K. R. A. Karnes, & S. M. Bean (Eds.),
Retrieved February 9, 2005, from (2003). The ultimate guide to get- Methods and materials for teaching
http://www.bestinc.org ting money for your classroom and the gifted(2nd ed., pp. 179–210).
Campbell, J. R., Wagner, H., & school. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
Walberg, H. J. (2001). Academic Maker, C. J., & Nielson, A. B.
Rogers, K. B. (2002). Re-forming
competitions and programs (1995). Teaching models in educa-
gifted education. Scottsdale, AZ:
designed to challenge the excep- tion of the gifted(2nd ed.). Austin,
Great Potential Press.
tionally able. In K. A. Heller, F. J. TX: Pro-Ed.
Mönks, R. Subotnik, & R. Malone, M. S., Clendaniel, E., & Seney, R. (2001). The process skills
Sternberg (Eds.), International Boland, M. (2002). The fix-it and the gifted learner. In F. A.
handbook of giftedness and talent kids take over. Forbes, 169(7), Karnes, & S. M. Bean (Eds.),
(2nd ed., pp. 523–535). New 34–44. Methods and materials for teaching
York: Elsevier. Nifong, C. (1996). Star search: the gifted (pp. 159–180). Waco,
Christopher Columbus Awards. Academic contests offer students TX: Prufrock Press.
(2005). Progress reports. Retrieved a reason to shine. Christian Stephens, K. R., & Karnes, F. A.
May 30, 2005, from Science Monitor, 88(73), 13.
(2001). Product development for
http://www.christophercolumbu- O’Reilly, B. (2003). And the winner
gifted students. In F. A. Karnes &
sawards.com/samples/progressre- is . . . . Fortune, 148(5), 54–55.
S. M. Bean (Eds.), Methods and
ports.htm Renzulli, J. S., Gentry, M., & Reis, S.
materials for teaching the gifted
Conrad, D., Gardner, J., Hanley, D., M. (2003). Enrichment clusters: A
(pp. 181–212). Waco, TX:
Robinson, M., Rogers, G., practical plan for real-world, stu-
Straub, D., Lee Wadington, W., dent-driven learning. Mansfield Prufrock Press.
Wolfman, G., & Ponick, F. S. Center, CT: Creative Learning Tallent-Runnels, M. K., & Candler-
(2001). Competing for ratings: Is Press. Lotven, A. C. (1996). Academic
it a good idea? Teaching Music, Riley, T. L. (2005). Teaching gifted competitions for gifted students: A
8(6), 20–26. and talented students in regular resource book for teachers and
Cropper, C. (1998). Is competition classrooms. In F. A. Karnes, & S.
parents. Thousand Oaks, CA:
an effective classroom tool for the M. Bean (Eds.), Methods and
Corwin Press.
gifted student? Gifted Child materials for teaching the gifted
Tomlinson, C. A., Kaplan, S. N.,
Today, 21(3), 28–30. (2nd ed., pp. 577–614). Waco,
Renzulli, J. S., Purcell, J.,
Davis, G. A., & Rimm, S. B. (1998). TX: Prufrock Press.
Leppien, J., & Burns, D. (2002).
Education of the gifted and tal- Riley, T. L., & Karnes, F. A.
The parallel curriculum: A design
ented (4th ed.). Needham (1998/1999). Competitions:
Heights: Allyn & Bacon. One solution for meeting the to develop potential and challenge
Holt, D. G., & Willard-Holt, C. needs of New Zealand’s gifted high-ability learners. Thousand
(2000). Let’s get real. Phi Delta students. APEX: The New Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
64 fall 2005 • vol 28, no 4