a 21st-century model for identifying students for gifted and … · 2013-08-02 · a 21st-century...

56 fall 2005 • vol 28, no 4

Schools began providing serv-ices for gifted and talented(GT) students in the 1860s

(DeLeon & VandenBox, 1985).However, GT programs in publicschools did not become common inthe United States (U.S.) until about100 years later. Terman’s (1925)scholarship helped establish standardsfor GT programs when he identifiedintelligence as an important, perhapsthe most important, marker of giftedstudents, and he suggested theyshould score among the top 2% onnationally standardized intelligencetests. These standards for identifica-tion continue in many locations. Forexample, 73% of school districts relyon standardized measures of cognitiveabilities when identifying GT stu-dents (Heward, 2000).

GT programs are intended forstudents who display exceptionalqualities, whose needs are not suffi-ciently served in regular educationprograms, and are likely to benefitfrom special education and relatedservices. Although GT programs pre-sumably are intended to meet stu-dents’ needs, support for theprograms is highly dependent onwhether they meet local, state, andnational needs.

The federal government high-lighted the importance of educatingGT children following the SovietUnion’s launch of its first satellite in1957. Congress passed and thePresident implemented the NationalDefense Education Act (NDEA) inan effort to educate exceptional stu-dents for the purpose of closing the

gap between the Soviet Union andU.S. in science and technology. Priorto the Act’s ratification, only six stateshad legislation addressing the needsof GT students. With NDEA fund-ing, services for GT students reachedan all time high and were found in allstates (DeLeon & VandenBox, 1985).

Legal Basis for GTPrograms

The federal government hasoffered several definitions for GT stu-dents. The Marland Report(Marland, 1972) may have had themost influence on GT programs(Bireley, 1995). It listed six qualitiesthat often are cited as options for GTprograms: general intellectual abili-ties, specific academic aptitudes, cre-

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

by Thomas Oakland and Eric Rossen

gifted child today 57

ative or productive thinking, leader-ship ability, ability in visual or per-forming arts, and psychomotorabilities. A 1998 survey found a num-ber of states omitted the psychomotorabilities category in their definition(Shaunessy, 2003).

The Javits Act (1988), derivedfrom the Elementary and SecondaryEducation Act, underscored theimportance of “high achievement capa-bility in areas such as intellectual, creative,artistic, or leadership capacity, or in spe-cific academic fields” (NationalAssociation for Gifted Children,2004).

The most current definition(USDE, 1993) significantly broadensthe scope of GT programs and isintended to embrace more students ofcolor and those from low-incomefamilies.

Children and youth with out-standing talent perform or show thepotential for performing at remark-ably high levels of accomplishmentwhen compared with others of theirage, experience, or environment.These children and youth exhibithigh performance capacity in intellec-tual, creative, and/or artistic areas,and unusual leadership capacity, orexcel in specific academic fields. Theyrequire services or activities not ordi-narily provided by the schools.Outstanding talents are present inchildren and youth from all culturalgroups, across all economic strata,and in all areas of human endeavor(USDE, 1993).

Its emphasis on potential andcapacity for performing at remarkablyhigh levels together with the expecta-tion that children and youth from allcultural groups and across all economicstrata will be included in GT pro-grams underscores the desire of thefederal government to be moreresponsive to the needs of minority,

impoverished, and otherwise at-riskstudents. Note that no federal defini-tion requires the use of nationalnorms when selecting GT studentsfor GT programs.

Education is largely a state func-tion. Thus, federal definitions may beadapted by individual states, resultingin differences in state definitions(Shaunessy, 2003).

Current Statusof Programs for GT

Students

An estimated 81% of school dis-tricts in the United States (currently)offer GT services (Mansfield &Farris, 1992). Approximately 37states currently have legislation forGT education, while only 26 stateshave full or partial mandates to serveGT students (Information Center onDisabilities and Gifted Education,2002). Although the process used toidentify GT students may differsomewhat between school districts, ittypically relies on GT committeescomposed of teachers, counselors,and administrators to establish boththe process and standards for GTidentification. Although some schooldistricts identify students in kinder-garten, most initially identify stu-dents in grades 2 through 4.

The process initially dependsheavily on teachers nominating stu-dents they believe have not beenserved sufficiently in regular educationprograms and who are likely to benefitfrom special education and relatedservices. Parents and peers also may beinvited to participate in this nomina-tion process. GT committees typicallyconsider existing data (e.g., classgrades, work samples, teacher reports)and collect additional information onthe nominees (e.g., from measures ofintelligence, achievement, creativity,

leadership, and/or performing andvisual arts) before making their selec-tions (Heward, 2000).

Changes within the U.S., includ-ing its public education system, chal-lenge the manner in which districtsoffer GT services. Issues pertaining topossible program changes are dis-cussed below.

Race/Ethnicity and Social Class

The U.S. is a nation composedlargely of immigrants or their ances-tors. People from more than 220countries reside temporarily or per-manently here. Immigration contin-ues, with more than 15% of the U.S.population having entered the coun-try within the last 10 years (UnitedStates Census Bureau, 2001a,2001b).

In many nations, students frommiddle class homes generally attendprivate schools, and students fromlower class homes generally attendpublic schools. In contrast, the U.S.strives to have its public school sys-tem serve students from every classand race/ethnicity. The proportion ofa school district’s resources providedto students who differ by social class,race/ethnicity, and thus by educa-tional need has been used as an indexof its commitment to this importantprinciple. Black and Hispanic stu-dents generally have received asmaller portion of resources devotedto GT education than others.

Students from most minoritygroups typically are underrepresentedin GT programs. When examined incloser detail, we find that, comparedto White students, Asian/PacificIslanders are one third more likely tobe in GT programs, while Blacks andHispanics are less than half as likely tobe in such programs (National

A 21st-Century Model for Identifying Students for Gifted and Talented Programs

58 fall 2005 • vol 28, no 4

Research Council, 2002). Morespecifically, approximately 7.5% and10% of White and Asian studentsrespectively are identified for place-ment in gifted programs. However,approximately 3% and 3.5% of Blackand Hispanic students are identifiedas gifted (Information Center onDisabilities and Gifted Education,2003). Thus, the proportion of stu-dents receiving GT services is incon-sistent with current nationalpopulation distributions and theirtrends. The relatively small percent ofBlack and Hispanic students engagedin GT programs is a concern to edu-cators and others nationally (NationalResearch Council, 2002).

Possible Causes for Racial/Ethnic

Disparities

The lower percentage of Blackand Hispanic students in GT pro-grams is due to multiple causes,including failure to be nominated,the grade in which students first arenominated, the qualities that consti-tute the GT program, informationconsidered during the screeningprocess, and the use of nationalnorms. These five issues are reviewedbelow.

Failure to Be Nominated

The nomination process has asignificant impact on disproportion-ate representation. Those not nomi-nated typically are not considered bythe GT committee and thus are noteligible for GT programs.

Teachers have the most contactwith students, are most knowledge-able about them, and typically canprovide more comprehensive infor-mation about student performancethan that obtainable from other

sources (Feldhusen & Heller, 1986).Teachers’ knowledge of students’achievement is especially keen.

Although teachers serve as aninvaluable resource, they may not beproperly engaged in the nominatingprocess (Ford, 1996) and may bebiased when estimating academicpotential among students who differby race/ethnicity (National ResearchCouncil, 2002). Moreover, teacherswho serve the poorest students maybe the least qualified (AssociatedPress, 2004). Exclusive reliance onteacher nominations may contributeto underrepresentation of minoritystudents. Reliance on parents ofminority children also may have itslimitations in that their referral ratesare lower than those of White parents(National Research Council, 2002).A process that allows self- and peer-nominations helps broaden the nom-inated pool somewhat.

The Grade in Which the Nomination Process Begins

The grade in which students firstare nominated also may impact thenumber of minority students nomi-nated for and thus included in GTprograms. More minority studentsare identified when the identificationprocess focuses on students in thelower grades than in the higher grades(National Research Council, 2002).This seemingly holds true whetherstandardized tests or checklists basedon personal characteristics are used.

Qualities That Constitute the GT Program

Tests of intelligence are usedwidely to screen GT students. Datafrom these tests generally display reli-able and measurable racial-ethnic dif-ferences (Herrnstein & Murray,

1994; National Research Council,2002; Shore, Cornell, Robinson, &Ward, 1991), with Blacks andHispanics scoring lower thanAsian/Pacific Islanders and Whites(Jensen, 1980; Sattler, 2001). As aresult, programs that prioritize intel-lectual abilities and rely heavily onintelligence test data are likely to havefewer Black and Hispanic studentsthan those that focus on other quali-ties (Ford, 1996). Nomination meth-ods based on specific educationalneeds seemingly lead to greater racial-ethnic equity (National ResearchCouncil, 2002).

Qualities That Are Screened

Once nominated, students typi-cally are examined in some detail.Ideally, the identification process mir-rors the activities and goals of the GTprogram (Ford, 1996).

The screening process often reliesheavily on intelligence test data.Intelligence and achievement testdata correlate highly and thus areused in GT programs to assist inidentifying able students. The corre-lation between intelligence andachievement is approximately .50(Sattler, 2001). Thus, approximately25% of the variance associated withachievement is attributable to intelli-


the proportion of students

receiving GTservices is

inconsistent withcurrent national

population distributions

and their trends.


gence. This figure, 25%, althoughsubstantial, indicates 75% of the vari-ance associated with achievement isattributable to qualities other thanintelligence. Moreover, measures ofintelligence provide little direct infor-mation about one’s passion for learn-ing, persistence, learning styles andstrategies, and other qualities thatmay contribute to academic success.

In that intelligence test data tendto be lower for Black and Hispanicstudents, reliance on them may pre-clude otherwise qualified studentsfrom being selected for GT programs(Rosenfield, 1983). Thus, the use of abroader set of data-gathering meth-ods (e.g., information from students,their parents, and peers acquiredthrough interviews, checklists, behav-ioral observations, and measures ofclassroom performance) that focus oninteractions among intellectual abili-ties, task commitment, and creativity(Renzulli, 1978), special abilities,nonintellective qualities, environ-mental conditions (Tannenbaum,1983), and on exceptional problem-solving skills (Maker, 1993;Sternberg, 1988) may be neededwhen identifying minority students(Boatman, Davis, & Benbow, 1995).We also need to recognize the bestpredictor of future performance isprior performance on a similar task(Sattler, 2001). Thus, future aca-demic attainment is best predictedfrom information on past and currentacademic attainment.

Use of National Norms

The use of national norms forselecting students for GT programsassumes students’ qualities are nor-mally distributed and somewhatequally represented throughout ourstates and cities. This assumption isuntenable. States and cities differ in

scholastic performance and the quali-ties students bring to schools.Substantial differences in achieve-ment exist between states, presum-ably due to such qualities asdifferences in race, social class, schoolresources, and curriculum (Lee,1998).

For example, scores from theScholastic Ability Test are consider-ably higher in some states (e.g., NorthDakota and Iowa) than in others(e.g., Georgia and South Carolina;National Center for EducationStatistics, 2001). Students in somestates (e.g., Hawaii and Mississippi)read at significantly lower levels than those in other states (e.g.,Connecticut and New Hampshire;NAEP, 2001). Furthermore, achieve-ment tends to be higher in suburbanthan in inner-city schools.

Teachers base their instructionalactivities on classroom and schoolnorms, not on national norms. Forexample, those teaching lower achiev-ing students generally modify theiractivities by providing a less rigorouscurriculum and slower paced instruc-tion, as well as establishing lower aca-demic standards in light of classroomnorms. Students who display a pas-sion for learning and high achieve-ment are not served well in theseclassrooms and thus are likely to needa GT program.

Programs for GT students areintended for students whose needs arenot sufficiently served in the district’sregular education programs and whomay benefit from related services pro-vided through local resources. In thatconsiderable differences exist nation-ally in the rigor of schools’ curriculaand students’ academic attainment,effective GT programs develop poli-cies and practices based on local con-ditions. States and cities that havelarge numbers of lower performing

students often adjust their criteria foradmission into GT programs, know-ing that their more able students arenot well served in many regular edu-cation classes. The use of lower cutscores is one method to adjustnational norms to better reflect loca-tion conditions. For example, citiesthat have large numbers of low per-forming students may establish lowercut scores on intelligence test data forGT program entrance (e.g., the 84thpercentile rather than the 97th or98th percentiles). Thus, for them, theuse of local rather than national stan-dards is more viable.

A Focus on PublicEducation in the 21st

Century and Implicationsfor GT Education

As a publicly supported institu-tion, public education is expected torespond to high priority public needsat all levels of government. At the fed-eral level, the President and Congressexpressed their clear support forimproving students’ academic devel-opment, initially in reading and laterin mathematics and science, throughthe No Child Left Behind Act(NCLB; 2001). The driving forcebehind the NCLB and the NDEA issimilar: to help ensure our country’sfuture.

Student achievement is lower inthe United States than in many otherindustrialized countries (Organisationfor Economic Co-operation andDevelopment, 2003). This poses athreat to our nation’s future and leadsto a clarion call for swift and decisiveaction to address this problem. Whilethe NDEA was intended to developtalent needed to combat the Sovietthreat, the NCLB is intended todevelop talent needed to maintain our


60 fall 2005 • vol 28, no 4

competitive edge internationally ineducation, science, technology, andthe military and to create an educatedworkforce that will ensure gooddomestic jobs. Thus, GT programsthat support federal education effortsunder the NCLB by helping todevelop high levels of achievementamong our most able students areneeded.

The demographic nature of ournation’s student population is chang-ing. Students increasingly are morelikely to be minority, especiallyHispanic, and to come from lowerincome families (United StatesCensus Bureau, 2001a, 2001b).These changes may foretell lower lev-els of academic achievement amongstudents in light of well-establishedgroup differences in intellectual andacademic abilities (Herrnstein &Murray, 1994; Jensen, 1980).

Educators are dedicated to theprinciple that quality education pro-grams can materially improveachievement. There is support for thebelief that the combination of a classof passionate learners engaged in achallenging and enriched curriculumpresented by dedicated teachers whoutilize appealing instructional meth-ods results in high levels of achieve-ment (Darling-Hammond, 2000).Programs for GT students are neededto help improve achievement amongBlack and Hispanic students, espe-cially those who are educated along-side low achieving peers.

The need to be competitive edu-cationally also is important at stateand local levels. States and cities oftendevelop a reputation based on thequality of their education as seen instudent achievement. Locationsknown for their academic excellencedevelop a positive reputation and arebetter able to attract and keep indus-tries that require an educated work

force and thus high wage earners. Incontrast, states and cities with prevail-ing low student achievement arelikely to have higher levels of unem-ployment and a lower paid workforce.Their jobs increasingly are being out-sourced and performed by thoseworking in low-income countries.The development of GT programs bystate and local education agencies canhelp by providing a well-educatedlabor force for local needs and creat-ing a magnet that attracts qualityindustry.

Implications for GTPrograms in the 21st

Century

The promotion of students’ aca-demic and civic development, as wellas regular school attendance consti-tutes education’s prevailing goals.Among the three, the importance ofpromoting students’ academic devel-opment has been highlighted by theNCLB. Virtually every state andschool district is committed to mak-ing the goals of the NCLB a reality.

The NCLB redefines the federalrole in K–12 education. Its broad goalis to close the achievement gapbetween low and high achieving (e.g.,minority and majority) studentswhile helping all students reachhigher state-approved academic stan-dards through the following fourreform principles: research-basedreforms, accountability for results,flexibility and increased local control,and expanded parent options andeducation.

The NCLB requires states todevelop high academic standardsalong with annually administeredacademic assessments aligned withthese standards. The assessments areto provide multiple, current, reliable,and valid data for use in evaluating

whether these standards are being metat state, school district, individualschool, and individual student levels.The academic performance of minor-ity students is receiving close atten-tion.

While the act does not addressGT programs directly, its implica-tions for GT programs are clear. Allprograms within a school district canbe expected to help support theNCLB’s goal to demonstrate annualyearly progress in students’ achieve-ment. Due to budget constraints,school districts are downsizing, eveneliminating programs, including GTprograms that do not support theirmajor goals. Thus, to survive, GTprograms may need to emphasizeachievement and to de-emphasizeintellectual ability, creativity, leader-ship, and/or performing and visualarts. The strongest advocacy for GTprograms may be found in aligningthem with more prevailing schoolprograms (e.g., NCLB).

Intelligence also is likely to be de-emphasized because it is somewhattangential to achievement and highlights racial/ethnic differences.Moreover, in part because of a height-ened interest in achievement, the pro-gram’s description together withmethods for nominating and screeningare likely to focus more on achieve-ment, and local norms will be used toselect students.

Program Description

The GT program should state itsgoals clearly and develop nomination,screening, and selection processes thatreflect its program goals. For exam-ple, a GT program that has advancedlevels of achievement as its goal, ini-tially in reading and later in math andscience, should develop nomination,screening, and selection methods that



help ensure the identification of stu-dents who currently are not wellserved academically in regular educa-tion, who need special education andrelated services, and have the abilityto benefit from a GT program’s cur-ricula and instructional methods.

Nominations

Given a district’s focus onachievement, its nomination processmust help identify students who arenot well served in regular educationand need special education andrelated services. Reading is likely tobe prioritized first while math andscience will follow. A nominationprocess that first informs, then edu-cates, and then encourages teachers,parents, and students to becomeengaged is likely to identify studentswho constitute a pool who deservegreater scrutiny through screening.Moreover, the nomination processshould begin as early as feasible andno later than the second grade.

Screening

The best predictor of future aca-demic success is one’s past and cur-rent level of success. Thus, students’achievement should be screenedclosely. Additionally, qualities associ-ated with achievement also should bescreened, including students’ passionfor learning, persistence, dedication,and self-discipline.

Norms

We are likely to see a decidedmovement away from national normsand toward the use of local norms.For example, local norms have beendeveloped using curriculum-basedmeasures and pre-literacy skills fromDynamic Indicators of Basic Early

Literacy Skills (Stewart & Kaminski,2002). Nationally normed achieve-ment measures have two possible lim-itations: They may assess skills andabilities inconsistent with a school’scurriculum, and they inform testusers about how students compare topeers nationally, not their peerslocally. Unless a school’s curriculum isconsistent with the test content andthe school’s population is representa-tive of the nation, the test informa-tion may be inadequate, even invalid.

Local norms may provide moreaccurate information when GT com-mittees are committed to identifyingstudents who have not been servedsufficiently in regular education pro-grams and who are likely to benefitfrom special education and relatedservices. Local norms provide moreaccurate information about how stu-dents are performing within their owncurriculum compared to their peerslocally. Attempts to make local deci-sions based upon national compar-isons should be questioned when adistrict’s characteristics differ fromprevailing national characteristics.

Local norms are likely to betterpredict success within a curriculumwhen making educational decisionsfor students in a district that is cultur-ally/linguistically different (Kamphaus

& Lozano, 1984) and may decreasethe likelihood of bias when makingeducational decisions (Stewart &Kaminski, 2002). Although thedevelopment of local norms mayrequire additional time and resources,their value is thought to outweightheir costs. Furthermore, various ref-erences exist to assist in their develop-ment (Habadank, 1995; Kaminski &Good, 1998; Stewart & Kaminski).Steps for their calculation are out-lined in Table 1 on page 63.

Conclusions

GT programs are most likely tosurvive, even flourish, when they helpsupport prevailing broader educationefforts, including the promotion ofachievement in light of the NCLB.Furthermore, effective GT programsdevelop policies and practices basedon local conditions. Thus, efforts areneeded that focus more on achieve-ment and less on intelligence, leader-ship and/or the performing and visualarts. Given a stronger emphasis onachievement, existing methods usedto nominate and screen students forGT programs should be reviewed andmay need to be revised. Additionally,the use of local norms is likely to bet-ter serve many districts. GGGG CCCC TTTT

References

Associated Press. (2004, December19). Report: Poor get least-fitteachers. The Gainesville Sun.

Bireley, M. (1995). Identifying highability/high achievement gifted-ness. In J. L. Genshaft, M.Bireley, & C. L. Hollinger (Eds.),Serving gifted and talented stu-dents: A resource for school person-nel (pp. 49–65). Austin, TX:PRO-ED.

GT programsare most likely

to survive, evenflourish, when

they help supportprevailing broadereducation efforts,

including the promotion

of achievementin light of the

NCLB.

62 fall 2005 • vol 28, no 4

Boatman, T. A., Davis, K. G., &Benbow, C. P. (1995). Best prac-tices in gifted education. In A.Thomas, & J. Grimes (Eds.), Bestpractices in school psychology III,(pp. 1083–1096). Washington,DC: National Association ofSchool Psychologists.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2000,January 1). Teacher quality andstudent achievement: A review ofstate policy evidence. EducationPolicy Analysis Archives, 8, 1.Retrieved February 9, 2004, fromhttp://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n1

DeLeon, P. H., & VandenBox, G. R.(1985). Public policy and advo-cacy on behalf of the gifted andtalented. In F. D. Horowitze, &M. O’Brien (Eds.), The gifted andtalented: Developmental perspec-tives (pp. 409–435). Washington,DC: American PsychologicalAssociation.

Feldhusen, J. F., & Heller, K. A.(1986). Introduction. In K. A.Heller, & J. F. Feldhusen (Eds.),Identifying and nurturing thegifted: An international perspective(pp. 19–32). Lewiston, NY: HansHuber Publishers.

Ford, D. Y. (1996). Reversing under-achievement among gifted Blackstudents: Promising practices andprograms. New York: TeachersCollege Press.

Habadank, L. (1995). Developinglocal norms for problem solving inthe schools. In A. Thomas, & J.Grimes (Eds.), Best Practices in School Psychology III(pp. 701–716). Bethesda, MD:National Association of SchoolPsychologists.

Herrnstein, R. J., and Murray, C.(1994). The bell curve: Intelligenceand class structure in American life.New York: The Free Press.

Heward, W. L. (2000). Exceptionalchildren: An introduction to special

education (6th ed.). Upper SaddleRiver, New Jersey NJ: Merrill.

Information Center on Disabilitiesand Gifted Education. (2002).GT—Legal issues. RetrievedDecember 11, 2004, fromhttp://ericec.org/faq/gt-legal.html

Information Center on Disabilities andGifted Education. (2003). GT—Minority identification. RetrievedDecember 11, 2004, fromh t t p : / / e r i c e c . o r g / f a q / g t -minor.html

Jensen, A. (1980). Bias in mental test-ing. New York: The Free Press.

Kamphaus, T., & Lozano, R. (1984).Developing local norms for indi-vidually administered tests. TheSchool Psychology Review, 13,491–498.

Kaminski, R. A., & Good, R. H.(1998). Assessing early literacyskills in a problem-solving model:Dynamic indicators of basic earlyliteracy skills. In M. R. Shinn(Ed.), Advanced applications ofcurriculum-based measurement(pp. 113–142). New York:Guilford.

Lee, J. (1998). State policy correlatesof the achievement gap amongracial and social groups. Studies in Educational Evaluation,24,137–152.

Maker, C. J. (1993). Creativity, intel-ligence, and problem solving: Adefinition and design for cross-cultural research and measure-ment related to giftedness. GiftedEducation International, 9(2),68–77.

Mansfield, W., & Farris, E. (1992).Office for civil rights surveyredesign: A feasibility survey.Retrieved February 5, 2004, fromhttp://nces.ed.gov/pubs92/92130.pdf

Marland, S. (1972). Education of thegifted and talented: Report to theCongress of the United States by the U.S. Commissioner ofEducation. Washington, DC: U.S.Government Printing House.

National Assessment of EducationalProgress. (2001). National assess-ment of educational progressachievement levels: 1992–1998 forreading. Retrieved December 12,2004, from http://www.nagb.org/pubs/readingbook.pdf

National Association for GiftedChildren. (2004). Javits programdescription. Retrieved December 11,2004, from http://www.nagc.org/policy/javitsprogramdescription.html

National Center for EducationStatistics. (2001). ScholasticAssessment Test score averages, bystate: 1987–88 to 2000–01.Retrieved February 4, 2003, fromhttp://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d01/dt137.asp

National Research Council. (2002).Minority students in special andgifted education. Washington,DC: National Academy Press.

No Child Left Behind Act, 20 U.S.C.§6301 (2001).

Organisation for Economic Co-opera-tion and Development. (2003).Education at a glance: OECDindicators. Paris: Author

Renzulli, J. S. (1978). What makesgiftedness?: Reexamining a defini-tion. Phi Delta Kappan, 61,180–184.

Rosenfield, S. (1983). Assessment ofthe gifted child. In T. R.Kratochwill (Ed.), Advances inschool psychology: Vol. III(pp. 141–174). Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Sattler, J. (2001). Assessment of chil-dren: Cognitive applications. SanDiego, CA: author.



Shaunessy, E. (2003). State policiesregarding gifted education. GiftedChild Today, 26(3), 16–21.

Shore, B. M, Cornell, D. G.,Robinson, A., & Ward, V. S.(1991). Recommended practices ingifted education: A critical analysis.New York: Teachers College Press.

Sternberg, R. (1988). The triarchicmind: A new theory of humanintelligence. New York: Viking.

Stewart, L. H., & Kaminski, R.(2002). Best practices in develop-ing local norms for academicproblem solving. In A. Thomasand J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practicesin school psychology IV (pp. 737–752). Bethesda, MD:National Association of SchoolPsychologists.

Tannenbaum, A. (1983). Gifted chil-dren: Psychological and educationalperspectives. Upper Saddle River,NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.

Terman, L. M. (1925). Genetic studiesof genius: Vol. 1. Mental and phys-ical traits of a thousand gifted chil-dren. Stanford, CA: StanfordUniversity Press.

Title IV, Part B. [Jacob K. Javits Giftedand Talented Students EducationAct of 1988], Elementary andSecondary Education Act of 1988,20 U.S.C. º 3061 et seq.

United States Census Bureau.(2001a). Overview of race: Census2000 brief. Washington, DC:Author.

United States Census Bureau.(2001b). Percent of persons who areforeign born: 2000. Washington,DC: Author.

U.S. Department of Education, Officeof Educational Research andImprovement. (1993). Nationalexcellence: A case for developingAmerica’s talent. Washington, DC:U.S. Government Printing Office.


T a b l e 1Steps to the Development

of Local Norms

1. Administer a test to a sample of 100 or more students.

2. Record the test scores.

3. Calculate the number (i.e., frequency) of students who obtained each possible score.

4. Calculate the cumulative frequency (a runningtotal) of students who obtain each score.

5. Calculate the cumulative percentage of students who obtain each score by dividing thecumulative frequency by the total number ofexaminees, then multiplying by 100.

6. Calculate the percentile corresponding to eachtest score by subtracting the cumulative percentage from 100, then rounding to thenearest integer.

For additional assistance, visit http://www.psionline.com/howto_develop_norms.htm

64 fall 2005 • vol 28, no 4

their problem-solving skills. Withcareful planning and facilitation, therewards extend beyond the prizesgiven to first-place winners. Teachers,their students, and competition spon-sors can benefit. The greatest out-comes, however, might be for theworld of tomorrow, as students grap-ple with authentic problems facedtoday. Their solutions can make a dif-ference! GGGG CCCC TTTT

References

BEST Robotics. (2005). What is BEST?Retrieved February 9, 2005, fromhttp://www.bestinc.org

Campbell, J. R., Wagner, H., &Walberg, H. J. (2001). Academiccompetitions and programsdesigned to challenge the excep-tionally able. In K. A. Heller, F. J.Mönks, R. Subotnik, & R.Sternberg (Eds.), Internationalhandbook of giftedness and talent(2nd ed., pp. 523–535). NewYork: Elsevier.

Christopher Columbus Awards.(2005). Progress reports. RetrievedMay 30, 2005, fromhttp://www.christophercolumbu-sawards.com/samples/progressre-ports.htm

Conrad, D., Gardner, J., Hanley, D.,Robinson, M., Rogers, G.,Straub, D., Lee Wadington, W.,Wolfman, G., & Ponick, F. S.(2001). Competing for ratings: Isit a good idea? Teaching Music,8(6), 20–26.

Cropper, C. (1998). Is competitionan effective classroom tool for thegifted student? Gifted ChildToday, 21(3), 28–30.

Davis, G. A., & Rimm, S. B. (1998).Education of the gifted and tal-ented (4th ed.). NeedhamHeights: Allyn & Bacon.

Holt, D. G., & Willard-Holt, C.(2000). Let’s get real. Phi Delta

Kappan, 82, 243–247.Kaplan, S. N. (2001). Layering differ-

entiated curriculum for the giftedand talented. In F. A. Karnes, &S. M. Bean (Eds.), Methods andmaterials for teaching the gifted(pp. 133–158). Waco, TX:Prufrock Press.

Karnes, F. A., & Bean, S. M. (2004).The Process Skills Rating Scales—Revised. Waco, TX: PrufrockPress.

Karnes, F. A., & Riley, T. L. (2005).Competitions for Talented Kids.Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

Karnes, F. A., & Stephens, K. R.(2003). The ultimate guide to get-ting money for your classroom andschool. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

Maker, C. J., & Nielson, A. B.(1995). Teaching models in educa-tion of the gifted (2nd ed.). Austin,TX: Pro-Ed.

Malone, M. S., Clendaniel, E., &Boland, M. (2002). The fix-itkids take over. Forbes, 169(7),34–44.

Nifong, C. (1996). Star search:Academic contests offer studentsa reason to shine. ChristianScience Monitor, 88(73), 13.

O’Reilly, B. (2003). And the winneris . . . . Fortune, 148(5), 54–55.

Renzulli, J. S., Gentry, M., & Reis, S.M. (2003). Enrichment clusters: Apractical plan for real-world, stu-dent-driven learning. MansfieldCenter, CT: Creative LearningPress.

Riley, T. L. (2005). Teaching giftedand talented students in regularclassrooms. In F. A. Karnes, & S.M. Bean (Eds.), Methods andmaterials for teaching the gifted(2nd ed., pp. 577–614). Waco,TX: Prufrock Press.

Riley, T. L., & Karnes, F. A.(1998/1999). Competitions:One solution for meeting theneeds of New Zealand’s giftedstudents. APEX: The New

Zealand Journal of GiftedEducation, 11/12(1), 21–26.

Riley, T. L., & Karnes, F. A. (1999).Forming partnerships with com-munities via competitions.Journal of Secondary GiftedEducation, 10, 129–133.

Rimm, S. B. (1986). Underachievementsyndrome: Causes and cures.Watertown, WI: Apple PublishingCompany.

Roberts, J. L., & Roberts, R. A.(2005). Writing units thatremove the learning ceiling. In F.A. Karnes, & S. M. Bean (Eds.),Methods and materials for teachingthe gifted (2nd ed., pp. 179–210).Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

Rogers, K. B. (2002). Re-forminggifted education. Scottsdale, AZ:Great Potential Press.

Seney, R. (2001). The process skillsand the gifted learner. In F. A.Karnes, & S. M. Bean (Eds.),Methods and materials for teachingthe gifted (pp. 159–180). Waco,TX: Prufrock Press.

Stephens, K. R., & Karnes, F. A.(2001). Product development forgifted students. In F. A. Karnes &S. M. Bean (Eds.), Methods andmaterials for teaching the gifted(pp. 181–212). Waco, TX:Prufrock Press.

Tallent-Runnels, M. K., & Candler-Lotven, A. C. (1996). Academiccompetitions for gifted students: Aresource book for teachers and parents. Thousand Oaks, CA:Corwin Press.

Tomlinson, C. A., Kaplan, S. N.,Renzulli, J. S., Purcell, J.,Leppien, J., & Burns, D. (2002).The parallel curriculum: A designto develop potential and challengehigh-ability learners. ThousandOaks, CA: Corwin Press.

continued from page 37

Problem-Solving Competitions: Just the Solution!

a 21st-century model for identifying students for gifted and … · 2013-08-02 · a 21st-century...

Documents