Gifted Program it Is Difficult

Gifted Program

It is difficult to find anything in the U.S. that has not been affected, one way or the other, by the current economic problems. Unfortunately, education is often the first to suffer from budget cuts. Even in the best of times, this is an area that receives the financial blows. Within the educational systems, the electives and special programs are ever more precarious. Thus, it comes as no surprise that the National Association of Gifted Children's (2009) "The State of the States in Gifted Education" report lists a number of states that have reduced or eliminated their gifted programsFive states decreased funding for gifted education in 2008-2009, four of these had increased funding in the prior year, while one had held funding constant. Eight states' received smaller proportional increases during this past year than in the year prior, and one of these held funding flat after an increase in the previous year. Those interviewed for the association's report were asked about positive and negative influences on gifted education. They expressed concern about changes in funding for gifted education and reduced funding for education overall. In addition, six respondents wrote separate notes about the budget cuts due to the current economy. Parents and teachers of gifted and talented children have continually faced a lack of state resources and support. For gifted programs throughout the country, this is even more of a challenging time. Even with their budget cuts, schools now have to focus on how normally underserved children can receive gifted programs and how the changing demographics in the country are impacting education.

According to the National Association of Gifted Children (2009), there are an estimated three million academically gifted and talented students from pre-K to grade 12 in the U.S. Although these students represent a wide variety of experiences, expertise, and cultural backgrounds, they all require a responsive and challenging education to help them achieve their highest potential. The association's (2009) report shows the diversity among states for gifted programming and services. Without a cohesive national strategy or any written federal mandate, state and local levels make final decisions on gifted programming. In 2008-09, this resulted in a disparity of services between and within states: 18 states do not have any funds allocated specifically for gifted programs and services. Further, of the 32 states with a mandate for gifted and talented education, only 6 reported fully funding the mandate, and of the 23 states submitting non-zero funding amounts, 11 allocated more than $10 million to gifted education and four allocated less than $1 million. Funding per each gifted student ranged from less than $2 to more than $750. However, gifted education funding was rated one of the areas requiring the most need of attention, with 36 of people interviewed for the association's report rating it "highest in need" or "in need" and only two rating it "not in need" or "least in need." Other areas of interest to the schools in terms of the gifted program were specific mandates, high levels of funding, professional preparation requirements, and accountability measures.

The National Association of Gifted Children's (2009) report noted that teacher training for gifted education is another area that varies across the nation. Only five states required general teachers to have pre-service training for gifted students, although these teachers are most often depended upon to meet the diverse educational needs of some of the most capable students. In 36 schools, general education teachers do not have training in this specialized area any time during their careers. Even when gifted students are placed in special programs tailored specifically for them, the teachers' training varies, with 20 states requiring those in gifted education programs to be certificated or endorsed in this specialized area, but just five states where teachers receive annual professional development. Thirteen states require district administrators for gifted education, but administrators need certification in gifted and education in only four of these states. A majority of those interviewed said funding for professional training in gifted education, preservice training at the undergraduate level, and training for general education teachers in gifted instruction needed attention. The No Child Left Behind program has also negatively impacted the gifted education, because it has led to under challenging those students who did not need extra support or has taken away funding away from other programs.

In recent years, educators of the gifted and talented have been challenged to identify gifts and abilities in culturally diverse and economically disadvantaged youth and to build programs to develop their talents. Gifted educators have long faced this challenge (Baldwin, Gear, & Lucito, 1980), but changing national demographics and a greater focus on equal representation of certain minority and economically disadvantaged students in educational programs for the gifted (Richert, 2003) have driven school systems and gifted education professionals to set their sights on these omitted youth. This is a very difficult challenge, as it is not only the talented and gifted programs that are trying to resolve the situation of highly variable educational resources across the U.S. Despite many attempts at educational reform over the years, numerous minorities and low-come children have yet to reach their full academic potential (Cavazos, 2002, p. 695).

According to Clasen (2006), gifted and talented educators have responded to this challenge of focusing on new student populations in a variety of ways. New methods are being devised to be more all-inclusive and encompass a wider variety of abilities and talents. Gifted program professionals continually look for different ways to identify and define the multidimensional aspects of giftedness. Romanoff, Algozzine & Nielson (1999), for example, conducted a statewide examination of scores on end-of-grade reading and math tests to evaluate the performance of African-American and Caucasian students. Although the Caucasian students' scores were above those of their African-American peers, the difference was smaller in reading and mathematics for those youth identified and placed in gifted programs. A number of different types of programs have been established specifically to recognize and develop a variety of talents in normally underserved student populations, such as university/school partnerships. Schools are also addressing the need for additional teacher training and staff development to identify and develop programming for underrepresented students. In an analysis of Texas' gifted education programs, Baker (2001) found significant disparities in availability of these opportunities for a variety of student populations, as well as major differences in procedures utilized to determine program eligibility Today, policymakers, researchers and educators are interested in the manner in which youth are identified as gifted and talented and entitled to such programs.

Reed (2007), for example, recognized that most of the students in gifted and talented educational programs are Caucasian, with some African-American and Asian students. However, due to language, many of the Hispanic students were not being identified and placed in these programs. English-as-a-second-language (ESL) students were out of sight in English language development classes with teachers lacking experience in gifted education. Normally, ESL students or their families do not complain, since many did not even know such programs exist. Reed was teaching at a school where the criterion for the gifted program was the Otis-Lennon School Ability Test, which measured the students' cognitive abilities as they relate to acquisition of knowledge and school success. Naturally, it was not likely that any of the 800 ESL students could do well on this test, regardless of their cognitive abilities. Because of budget, the school could not purchase new screening tools, such as the Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test. Reed (2007) said she had to overcome resistance both from the school and the ESL community to screen and identify these students and then work closely with the faculty and parents to ensure fairness and a favorable outcome. They all learned that with creativity, it was possible to find and meet the educational needs of an under-served population. No longer were ESL students excluded from the most academically rigorous courses.

Determining which tests to use for identification of gifted youth is a major emphasis. Sak (2009) examined the psychometric properties of the three-mathematical minds (M3) test, which was developed based on a multidimensional giftedness concept to identify mathematically talented students. According to Sak (2009), the three-mathematical minds model is an vehicle for developing theory-driven tests of mathematical ability to assess the students' primary cognitive abilities for the three mathematical areas of production, reproduction, and routine problem-solving. Participants included 291 middle-school students with lower to upper socio-economic background and a racial distribution of participants as follows: Caucasian (72.2%), Mexican-American (14.4%), Asian (3.4%), black (2.4%), Native American (1.4%), and others (6.2%). The results were mixed: Testing for a wide range of student age and abilities for gifted programs presents a number of academic challenges.

By the year 2025, one in four schoolchildren will be Latino. Minority students, including Hispanics, are often underrepresented in gifted education programs, most often lack knowledge about college as an option, and have the highest high school dropout rate (as reported in Kettler, Shiu, & Johnsen, 2006). Many schools offer advanced placement (AP) college courses in lieu of those specifically for gifted, and minority students are also not involved with these, as well. To address these social and academic issues, the Waco, Texas, Independent School District (2005) initiated a project offering AP Spanish Language to eighth-grade Hispanic students and later expanded to three years (Rakow, 2005). The goal was to promote student success, develop self-confidence, and support student academic aspirations among an at-risk student population. In the three years of program implementation, 117 students took the class and corresponding AP exam. Of these, 92 (79%) earned qualifying scores of 3, 4, or 5 on the exam and four high school credits. In addition, the AP students were more likely to participate in honor societies (29.3%), academic clubs (36.2%), and to win an academic honor (41.4%), as compared with the HE and HS students. In addition, more of the AP students reported planning to participate in AP courses (92.7%), dual credit (67.9%) courses, honors courses (52.8%), pre-AP courses (52.8%), honor societies (37.0%), and service clubs (24.1%) in high school than those who spoke Spanish as their first language and Hispanic students who spoke English as the first language who did not participate (Kettler, Shiu, & Johnsen, 2006).

The Office of Civil Rights is alarmed by the underrepresentation of African-American students in gifted programs (as noted in Hertzog, 2005). The achievement gaps between Caucasian students from middle-to-high income homes and those from minority and low-income homes is a serious concern in the U.S. Hertzog (2005) conducted a study to examine the introduction of project-based learning as a school-wide program that would higher levels of achievement and recognize the potential in a student population that is normally underserved in gifted programs. Project-based learning is more often found in gifted programs than in classes where students perform below age or grade level. The purpose of this school's initiative was to alter the environment for learning to enhance the growth of students' potential and to change the beliefs of teachers and encourage them to recognize and develop talents in those youth who are normally overlooked for gifted programs. As the result of this initiative, teachers became much more understanding of the higher expectations of their students. Classrooms changed with the addition of many more learning tools. The implementation of this program was not easy given the challenges of time, resources and mixed interest by the teachers' and administrators.' There were also a variety of different initiatives occurring at any one time, but most of the teachers were favorable about project-based learning at the end of its first year of implementation. teachers saw high levels of engagement during project-based learning activities. Teachers were more aware of the students' ability to focus on learning when having meaningful experiences that were connected to their personal interests. In brief, the students "acted more gifted" by assuming some of the traits educators normally use to identify youth for gifted programs, such as demonstrating curiosity by asking questions, remaining interested and involved over time, acquiring new knowledge quickly, solving problems creatively, and becoming self-motivated to gain more learning and go into greater depth on subjects of interest (Hertzog, 2005).

A number of school systems are thinking out of the box when developing their programs for gifted youth. The Gifted Kids Network, http://www.giftedkidsnetwork.com/, is a Web-based, supplemental, gifted and talented programming model that includes standards-based classes, enrichment clusters, and affective programming (Ekstein, 2009). The network is designed to encourage students to think critically and creatively, question information presented to them, and thoughtfully integrate subjects covered into their daily lives. Socratic-style discussion forums, PowerPoint presentations, group work, and individual response blogs are used to give students the opportunity to express themselves and engage with the content. The network also exposes students to technology tools that can enhance their creativity, organization, and productivity. There are seven main goals for students in the program, which were adapted from Florida's Framework for Gifted Learners (Florida Department of Education, 2007): Students will be able to: 1) critically examine the complexity of knowledge and information; 2) ask and assess multifaceted questions in a variety of fields and disciplines; 3) conduct thoughtful research; 4) think creatively and critically to identify and suggest possible solutions to real-world problems; 5) assume leadership and participatory roles in group learning situations; and 6) produce a variety of authentic projects using 21st-century tools that demonstrate understanding in multiple fields and disciplines. The network's structure is based on Ng and Nicholas (2007), who suggested using online technologies to engage gifted students, such as online management systems, e-mail, and Web-based resources. Software applications and tools for the network include wikis, blogs, podcasting, Voicethread, and video creation software that enable teachers and students to create multimedia projects. Academic-based online social networking offers a way to connect gifted students in rural communities with intellectual peers and acquire the skills of social networking in a safe environment. With the combination of social networking and multimedia lessons created around advanced content, this network offers a gifted program that teaches meaningful curriculum and 21st-century skills and encourages critical thinking and creativity (Eckstein, 2009).

Another innovative idea is using the abilities and interests of gifted children in service learning opportunities (Terry & Bohnenberger, J.E., 2004; Terry, 2008). According to Roeper (1992), who was long involved in the education process of exceptional students, an opportunity in which students are kept from developing feelings of being outsiders or separated from the world should be established when planning programs for gifted students. She suggested that school systems establish an environment that maintains the uniqueness of youth while "accepting their integration into the larger global ambience, just as the heart is a distinct organ within the body" (p. 52), since societal attitudes and educational processes separate youth from their world. Cooperation, she stressed, is needed in order for children to be fully integrated into the community. "Only if we can bring about the change in attitude will we save our globe and create the safe world our children are entitled to inherit" (Roeper, 1992, p. 93). Renzulli (2007) noted that gifted young people must be given opportunities, resources, and encouragement for firsthand investigative or creative experiences in their specific areas of interest. He suggested that approaches that are utilized to build giftedness in youth need to pay as much attention to the co-cognitive conditions of development, such as optimism, courage, sensitivity to human concerns, physical/mental energy, and vision/sense of destiny, as that presently given to cognitive development. According to Terry (2005), advanced levels of service-learning provide gifted students with situations where they can exhibit a great deal of creativity, responsibility, reflective judgment, self-knowledge, empathy for people, and individuality of thought and behavior, as well as other self-actualization traits. Service-learning has the ability of helping gifted students attain their creative optimum as they look for new answers to society's complex challenges, and it is proven to be an effective, differentiated curriculum for instruction for the gifted students and to help them reach toward higher levels of attainment (Terry, 2005).

In the coming years, school systems are going to face ever-growing challenges when it comes to education, let alone programs such as those for the gifted and talented. They will need governmental and education leadership and interest along with financial support, an emphasis on high-quality teacher training in college and in the schools, teacher leadership training programs, and increased emphasis on research to base identification of students and develop programming practices that meet the needs of all students, not just a select few. (Moon, & Dixon, 2006).

According to Renzulli (2007), research is going to play an important role in the area of gifted program. One thing that must be studied at greater length is the effectiveness of different delivery systems for various populations. It has been difficult getting additional gifted programs into communities with at-risk students, and at times educators have taken programs into these schools that are structured on models of learning and gifted program practices that are successful in typical middle class suburban communities. Some commonalities exist in all learning, but also different kinds of environmental situations influence education. It is not possible to take a program out of an affluent suburb and just use it as is at a hardcore urban area or a rural poor area for developing high performance in potentially gifted kids. Studies need to be led to examine the cultural strengths, environmental and family influences, and social and emotional factors that will help educators and other gifted and talented program professionals how to best meet the needs of diverse populations.