winter 2007 • volume xxvii, issue 1 tempo · 2007. 2. 20. · winter 2007 • tempo • texas...

rural education

TEMPOTexas association for the Gifted and talented • Member, National Association for Gifted Children (NAGC)

Winter 2007 • Volume XXVII, Issue 1

2 Winter 2007 • Tempo • Texas Association for the Gifted and Talented

2007 TAGT Conferences

w w w . t x g i f t e d . o r g

Come and Learn!

TAGT Parent ConferenceFebruary 24

Houston

Houston ISD’s Hattie Mae White ESC

Dr. Richard Olenchak, keynote speaker

Dr. Debra Troxclair, featured speaker

Marriott Austin Airport South

“G/T Leaders: The Essential Piece in Gifted Education”

Dr. Paul Slocumb, keynote speaker

TAGT Annual Professional Development

ConferenceNovember 14 - 17

Houston

George R. Brown Convention Center

TAGT Leadership ConferenceMarch 29 - 30

Austin

�Winter 2007 • Tempo • Texas Association for the Gifted and Talented

TEMPOWinter 2007 • Volume XXVII, Issue 1

TEMPO EdITOrDr. Jennifer L. Jolly

PrEsIdENTDr. Keith Yost

PrEsIdENT-ElECTAnn Studdard

FIrsT VICE-PrEsIdENTDr. Laura Mackay

sECONd VICE-PrEsIdENTPatti Staples

ThIrd VICE-PrEsIdENTJoanna Baleson

sECrETAry/TrEAsurErRobert Thompson

IMMEdIATE PAsT-PrEsIdENTRaymond “Rick” Peters

EXECuTIVE dIrECTOrDianne Hughes

The Texas Association for the Gifted and Talented (TAGT) is a nonprofit organization of parents and professionals promoting appropriate education for gifted and talented students in the state of Texas.

TAGT Tempo is the official journal of the Texas Association for the Gifted and Talented. It is published four times a year in January, April, July, and October. The subscription is a benefit for TAGT members. Annual dues are $49.

Material appearing in Tempo may be reprinted unless otherwise noted. When copying an article please cite Tempo and TAGT as the source. We appreciate copies of publications containing Tempo reprints.

Address correspondence concerning the Texas Association for the Gifted and Talented (including subscription questions) to TAGT, 1524 S. IH 35, Suite 205, Austin, Texas, 78704. Call TAGT at 512/ 499-8248, FAX 512/499-8264.

ADDRESS CORRECTION REQUESTED: Please notify TAGT if you are moving or if your mailing address has changed. TAGT publications are sent via third-class mail and are not forwarded by the Post Office. Be sure to renew your membership. You will not receive TAGT publications or mailings after your membership expiration date.

opinions expressed by individual authors do not necessarily represent official positions of taGt.

From the PresidentKeith Yost

Executive director’s updateDianne Hughes

From the EditorJennifer L. Jolly

Teacher requirements for Gifted Education

Floyd’s story: A Gifted Child in disguiseMargaret Hammer

To be young, Gifted, & ruralBarbara Holland

driving PassionBarbara Hoggan

What the research says About Gifted students who have learning disabilitiesSusan K. Johnson, Karen Rollins & Alexander Shiu

Book reviews

5

7

8

9

14

16

20

24

�2


CONTrIBuTING AuThOrsMargaret Hammer, Ph.D. is an assistant professor in the

Department of Curriculum & Instruction at Sam Houston State University and an award-winning elementary/middle schoolteacher. She worked with gifted and talented children in Texas schools for 17 years and coached Odyssey of the Mind (formerly Olympics of the Mind) for 10 years. Her interests include teacher preparation in elementary science, gifted education and classroom management. Contact information: [email protected]

Barbara Hoggan, M.S. is a University of North Texas doctoral candidate in Curriculum and Instruction, minoring in Gifted Studies. Her dissertation concerns success factors of first semester TAMS students. Formerly a gifted magnet school math and science teacher, Barbara is currently McKinney ISD’s K-12 Gifted Specialist. Her re-search interests include young gifted, highly gifted, and early college entry adolescents. Contact information: [email protected]

Barabara Holland, M. S. is a creative writing and English teacher for gifted students. She has taught exclusively for 28 years in rural schools, grades three through nine. Her experiences have ranged from grades three through nine, and she currently teaches middle school gifted classes, creative writing, and English. She holds an M.S. in reading education from Nicholls State University and a B.S. in elementary education from Louisiana State University. Contact information: [email protected]

Susan K. Johnsen, Ph. D., is a professor in the Department of Educational Psychology at Baylor University. She directs the Ph. D. Program and programs related to gifted and talented education. She is past-president of the Texas Association for Gifted and Talented. She has written over 100 articles, monographs, technical reports, and books related to gifted education. She is a frequent presenter at inter-national, national, and state conferences. She is editor of Gifted Child Today and serves on the editorial boards of Gifted Child Quarterly

and Journal for Secondary Gifted Education. She is the author of Identifying Gifted Students: A Practical Guide; co-author of the Independent Study Program and three tests that are used in identifying gifted students: Test of Mathematical Abilities for Gifted Students (TOMAGS), Test of Nonverbal Intelligence (TONI-3), and Screening Assessment for Gifted Students (SAGES-2). Contact information: [email protected]

Karen Rollins, M. S., LPC, is a Licensed Professional Counselor in private practice, specializing in children with disabilities. She also is a part-time therapist at the Baylor University Counseling Center and a project manager for the Center for Learning and Development, which focuses on children with learning difficulties and ADD. She is a doctoral student in the Department of Educational Psychology at Baylor University. Her research interests are gifted students with learning disabilities, anxiety and school issues, attention deficit disorder, and struggling learners. Contact information: [email protected]

Alexandra Shiu, M.S. received both her undergraduate and graduate degrees from Baylor University in economics. She is a doctoral student and a graduate assistant in the Department of Educational Psychology at Baylor University. Her research interests include behavior theory, gifted minority students from lower SES backgrounds, and social capital. Contact in-formation: [email protected]

In 2002 when the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) was

signed into law by George W. Bush, I wondered what ef-

fect this so called “miracle bill” would have on education.

Being a central office administrator overseeing the Pre-K

– 12th grade language arts, social studies, languages other

than English, and gifted and talented programs in 2002, I

felt the need to read this piece of legislation from cover to

cover. Soon I realized that in actuality, NCLB, would leave

many students behind, mainly the bright and gifted. Since

the implementation of this law, it is evident that my worst

fears have been realized. Fortunately, the Texas Association

for the Gifted and Talented (TAGT) has advocated for gifted

and talented children, their parents, and educators for the

past thirty years. As the newly elected president for TAGT,

I would like to propose the following initiatives to build a

stronger, more influential TAGT during this legislative year.

First of all, a larger organization has more clout when deal-

ing with politicians and other vital players and power bro-

kers. Currently, TAGT, the largest advocacy organization

for gifted and talented students in the world, has just over

4,000 members. Although this is an impressive number,

Texas currently has identified approximately 336,000 gifted

and talented students. As a result, it seems we should have a

much larger membership. Needless to say, my first initiative

is to increase the membership of TAGT to well over 6,000

members by the end of the 2007. If every member would just

recruit one person to join, we could easily meet this goal.

In addition, TAGT has invested a tremendous amount of

monies in gifted and talented students over the past 30 years

by providing scholarships for summer programs. These

funds have enabled many gifted and talented students, in-

cluding many lower socio-economic students, to attend high

quality, stimulating programs that truly meet their unique

needs and abilities. As a result, my second initiative is to

increase the TAGT restricted scholarship fund of just over

$400,000 to $500,000 by the end of 2007. Again, if every

member would just pledge to give $20 this year, this goal

could be easily attained.

This being a legislative year, it is important that TAGT

continue to advocate for our gifted and talented students.

One of many important issues facing programming for

gifted and talented students in Texas is accountability. In

2004 the legislature took accountability away from the state

and gave that accountability to districts in regard to gifted

programs. Needless to say, gifted programming became

less important in many districts, especially considering the

pressure of NCLB. Accountability of gifted and talented

programs must rest at the state, not with school districts.

My third initiative is to begin to build an awareness and

support of a state accountability system for gifted programs

with the current legislators. In order for this to happen your

voice is needed. Please begin to develop a relationship with

your state representative and senator. Introduce yourself,

and then don’t hesitate to contact your representative regu-

larly expressing the need for such accountability. With over

4,000 voices communicating a similar message, much can

be accomplished!

For the past 30 years, the Texas Association for the Gifted

and Talented has been a major voice for gifted and talented

students, parents of the gifted and educators of the gifted

in Texas. By increasing membership, building a larger

scholarship fund and advocating for state accountability for

gifted programs, we can ensure that the gifted and talented

students of Texas have the opportunity to be appropriately

challenged. Then, and only then, will NO CHILD BE LEFT

BEHIND!

from the presidentby DR. KeITH YoST

Winter 2007 • Tempo • Texas Association for the Gifted and Talented 5

6

Winter 2007 • Tempo • Texas Association for the Gifted and Talented

PresidentDr. Keith Yost2670 Shady Acres LandingHouston, TX [email protected]

President-electAnn StuddardFrisco ISD7159 HickoryFrisco, TX [email protected]

First Vice PresidentDr. Laura Mackay2136 Lakewind LaneLeague City, TX [email protected]

Second Vice PresidentSheri Plybon2205 Parkhaven Dr.Plano, TX [email protected]

Third Vice PresidentJoanna BalesonC. P. I. Inc.P. O. Box 792 Seabrook, TX 77586281-474-7904 fax: [email protected]

Secretary/TreasurerRobert Thompson1020 Timber View Dr.Bedford, TX [email protected]

Immediate Past President

Raymond “Rick” PetersLockheed Martin Aeronautics2104 Shady Brook DriveBedford, TX [email protected]

executive DirectorDianne Hughes1524 S. IH 35, Suite 205Austin, TX 78704512-499-8248 fax: [email protected]

I Patricia RendonRegion I ESC1900 West SchuniorEdinburg, TX 78541956-984-6237 fax: [email protected]

II Tracy RodriguezCollegiate High School101 Baldwin Blvd.Corpus Christi, TX 78404361-698-2425 fax [email protected]

III Alexandra Schoenemann

Yoakum ISDP. O. Box 797Yoakum, TX 77995361-293-3001 fax: [email protected]

IV Lynette BreedloveSpring Branch ISD10670 HammerlyHouston, TX [email protected]

V Dr. Ron SimsLumberton ISD121 South MainLumberton, TX 77657409-923-7507 fax: [email protected]

VI Stacey elstonPO Box 1166Magnolia, TX [email protected]

VII Joe StokesSabine ISD2801 Chandler St.Kilgore, TX 75662903-984-7347 fax: [email protected]

VIII Sandra StromParis ISD/Paris HS2400 Jefferson RdParis, TX 75460903-737-7400 fax: [email protected]

IX Missy MayfieldRegion IX ESC301 Loop 11Wichita Falls, TX [email protected]

X Marilyn SwansonGifted Students Institute, SMUPO Box 750383Dallas, TX [email protected]

XI Dr. Richard SinclairTX Academy of Math & ScienceP. O. Box 305309 UNTDenton, TX 76203-5309940-565-3971 fax: [email protected]

XII Laura YoungKilleen ISDClear Creek Elementary501 Elmer King RoadKilleen, TX [email protected]

XIII Michelle SwainRound Rock ISD1311 Round Rock Ave.Round Rock, TX 78681512-464-5023 fax: [email protected]

XIV Dr. Cecelia BoswellP. O. Box 316De Leon, TX [email protected]

XV Debbie LopezSanta Rita ElementarySan Angelo ISD615 South MadisonSan Angelo, TX 76901-4461325-859-3672 [email protected]

XVI Paula ColemanBorger ISD14 Adobe Creek TrailBorger, TX 79007806-274-2014 [email protected]

XVII Claire KingLubbock ISD7508 AlbanyLubbock, TX [email protected]

XVIII Beverly JeffcoatRegion 18 ECSPO Box 60580Midland, TX [email protected]

XIX Lynne DeLeonSocorro ISD3344 FreeportEl Paso, TX [email protected]

XX Jose Laguna7703 RohrdanzLive Oak, TX [email protected]

Editorial Board

Tempo Editor Dr. Jennifer L. Jolly (512) 499-8248 TAGT 1524 S. IH 35, Ste. 205 Austin, TX 78704 [email protected]

Editorial Board Members Karen Fitzgerald (713) 365-4820 Spring Branch ISD 10670 Hammerly Houston, TX 77043 [email protected] Tina Forester (936) 931-2182 Windswept Ranch, TWHBEA 13227 FM 362 Waller, TX 77484 [email protected]

Todd Kettler (214) 496-7004 Coppell ISD 268 Southwestern Blvd Coppell, TX 75019 [email protected] Dr. Joyce E. Kyle Miller (972) 613-7591 2600 Motley Drive Mesquite, Texas 75150 [email protected]

Jennifer Robins (512) 300-2220 Prufrock Press 5926 Balcones Dr., Suite 220 Austin, TX 78731 [email protected]

Dr. Gail Ryser 4906 Strass Dr. Austin, TX 78731 [email protected]

texas association for the Gifted and talented2007 executive board

executive director’s updateby Dianne Hughes

Recently, the American Society of Association Executives (ASAE) released a report on what “remarkable associations do that others don’t”. The research for this report incorporated the process used by Jim Collins in identifying outstanding corporations featured in his book, Good to Great. The not-for-profit association community wanted to know what dimensions, or best practices, within an as-sociation would distinguish it from other as-sociations, so ASAE commissioned the four-year project. The results of the study have been compiled into a book called the 7 Measures of Success and was chaired by Dr. Michael Gallery, who facilitated the TAGT Board of Directors in a planning process last spring.

An organization comprised of volunteer leaders from diverse locations and experi-ences is uniquely challenged to clearly articu-late its mission and then create all programs, products, and services to be consistent and supportive of that mission. Many times the mission statement is too long to remember and includes altruistic words that cannot be accurately replicated in measurable outcomes. Consequently, success may be indefinable. With that in mind, I want to focus my article on the organizational characteristics that were identified in the ASAE study that define great-ness. These seven specific characteristics can be grouped under three broad areas of organi-zational commitment.

Commitment to Purpose

The first characteristic is a Customer Service Culture where service is demonstrable by vol-unteer and staff leadership in a manner that advances the mission of the association and its members. In assessing an organization with a customer service culture, members are viewed as an asset rather than a liability and member complaints about poor service are seldom. Another aspect of the service culture is sub-stantive evidence that any product or service is truly wanted and needed by the membership.

Since I have been at TAGT, we have struggled with a Family Day in tandem with the Annual

Professional Development Conference. In a last test approach, the format was changed and significant marketing efforts for Family Day were made. However, the outcome of Family Day confirmed that the service and format offered was not the right service needed. So, back to the drawing board to get feedback from the stakeholder group whose needs we seek to address.

The second characteristic of success is an Alignment of Products and Services with Mission. A clear mission statement is essential to evaluating the degree to which services sup-port the organization’s mission. This alignment also reinforces the organization’s customer service culture. Products and services that are not consistent to the association’s mission are discontinued in an organization attuned to its purpose.

Commitment to Analysis and Feedback

So, what is the key for deciding the products and services that should be offered to member-ship? Remarkable associations use Data Driven Strategies to determine products and services to offer its members. The reason many programs fail or collapse is that the decision to provide the product or program was not first verified and tested with the stakeholder group. Ongoing data gathering, both formal and informal, is es-sential in monitoring continued relevance of services in a changing environment.

It is not surprising that Dialogue and Engagement is another characteristic of ex-ceptional associations. Active communication includes everyone within the organization. Across departments, among staff and volun-teers, information is shared and not hoarded with the driving objective to serve the mem-ber. Such dialogue fosters focus in direction as well as in prioritizing organizational goals; consensus is built through engagement during the communication process. The passion of TAGT members about gifted issues is readily confirmed through the phone calls and con-ference evaluation forms. Synthesizing and

constructively creating a plan that confirms member consensus as to organizational priori-ties is the challenge!

The CEO or executive director in an ex-ceptional association may or may not be a “content” expert but they must be a broker of ideas. Although the staff executive may be a visionary thinker, it is more important that he/she facilitate visionary thinking throughout the organization.

Commitment to Action

Organizational Adaptability demonstrates an organization’s awareness to changes in the environment and the need to respond to change appropriately in the best interest of the organization. An appropriate response also includes knowing what not to change. An organization’s action is the logical culmination of its commitment to purpose and its analysis of the feedback that it monitors and values.

Confident associations seek partners and projects that complement their mission and purpose. Although some organizations may appear to be logical alliance relationships, their goals may be at cross purpose to the mission of TAGT. Since TAGT supports an educational subset within education, it may find that alli-ances within the broader arena of education are not as effective as alliances with groups that are more complimentary in mission.

Although the content of this article is not focused on “gifted students” or the mission of TAGT, it is focused on the qualities and val-ues that drive outstanding organizations. As TAGT’s executive director, these are the values that I am committed to pursue, not only within my profession but as the steward of our shared resources at TAGT. Together, let us commit to continue to build toward TAGT’s greatness in the New Year.


from the editorJennifer L. Jolly

The December 18, 2006 issue of Time included, “How to Build a

Student for the 21st Century,” reiterating many of the tenants that those

in gifted education have been suggesting well before the 21st century—

problem solving, creative and critical thinking, and curriculum that is

interdisciplinary and focuses on big ideas and themes rather than the

minutia of basic knowledge. The New Commission on the Skills of the

American Workforce, a group of education, business, and government

leaders proposes that American education must change in order produce

a workforce that can think creatively, critically, and interdisciplinary and

move beyond the basics as emphasized by No Child Left Behind. “Kids

need to learn how to leap across disciplines because that is how break-

throughs now come about” (p. 52). This is heartening for those educators

working with our most able students who have often mastered the basics

and require the challenge of thinking outside of the box.

Ironically, the most effective advocates and change agents are those

outside of education, such as Bill Gates and Scott McNealy. The Bill and

Melinda Gates Foundation offers grant monies to high schools wanting

to offer a more rigorous curriculum so that more students are prepared

to go to and be successful in college. After helping his son with a third

grade science project, Scott McNealy, chairman of Sun Microsystems,

saw the need for and helped develop a global education and learning

community, Curriki.org (I suggest a visit to the site), where access to

most any topic is available along with lessons, audio and visual demon-

strations, and links to additional resources. A seemingly ideal avenue for

those students working on independent study projects and accelerated

content.

A handful of schools and communities are embracing these strategies,

a metamorphosis nationwide is the real question at hand. There are pub-

lic schools that have implemented an interdisciplinary/global approach

to education, where technology is a foremost priority. Other school

districts have chosen the International Baccalaureate (IB) program, a

curriculum which promotes rigorous coursework and emphasizes a

global approach to education.

Immediate Past-President Rick Peters spoke to these very issue when

urging educators to give our most able students the tools to compete in

the areas of math and science that also fosters critical and creative think-

ing and problem solving. Moving away from schools that were designed

to produce workers to man farms and assembly lines will not occur

overnight. However, transforming the way America does education is

imperative if the nation is to stay competitive in a global society fueled

by technology.

This issue of Tempo includes articles on the masking of giftedness, a

child’s early gifts, rural gifted education, an overview of gifted teacher

certification across the United States, and a report on the research of

twice-exceptional students.

Hammer describes the trials and tribulations of “Floyd,” a gifted stu-

dent, whose turmoil with his parents’ separation caused him to deny

his gifts and create deficits for himself. Hoggan presents a very different

scenario of a very young child with an intense interest in cars and his

parents’ efforts to facilitate his interest and learning.

Gifted rural education is a topic not often discussed in gifted educa-

tion circles, even though; it impacts a large number of school districts

across the Texas and the United States. Holland discusses both the ben-

efits and detractors of rural education and the implications for gifted

students.

The survey of gifted teacher certification (or lack there of ) across the

United States found Texas not at the bottom of teacher requirements but

very near. Thirty clock hours is better than no training at all, but a far

cry from states such as Louisiana, Iowa, Tennessee, or Nevada, which

require no less than 12 hours of graduate work in gifted education. Those

teachers in Texas who hold an endorsement or state certificate (both

optional) represent a group of dedicated educators who are willing to

pursue additional training without a mandate from the state.

Finally, Johnsen, Rollins, and Shiu present an overview of the literature

on gifted students with learning disabilities. The past decade of research

examined twice-exceptional learners from elementary school to higher

education settings. However, as evidenced from the literature, much

more research needs to be conducted in this area.

As a new year begins, I would like to welcome Keith Yost, the new

TAGT president. His vision in conjunction with the TAGT board mem-

bers will continue to advocate for gifted children across Texas and also

work with those at the Capital during this legislative session.

Winter 2007 • Tempo • Texas Association for the Gifted and Talented8

9Winter 2007 • Tempo • Texas Association for the Gifted and Talented

Teacher RequirementsThis table is being made available to those with a vested interest in gifted educa-

tion, so that they can be aware of the requirements to teach gifted children not only in the state of Texas but how Texas compares nationwide. A survey of teacher certification across the United States was conducted, and information was gath-ered on states’ requirements for teaching gifted children in public schools. Each state department of education was contacted and their website visited to gather information about teaching requirements. The National Association for Gifted Children’s 2004-2005 State of the States report was used to check for validity, fill in informational gaps, and add to the existing database.

Reference

National Association for Gifted Children. (2005). 2004-2005 State of the States report. Washington, DC: Author.

State Certification Endorsement Other Under Special Education

Alabama • Must have completed 5 year program

Alaska • 6 semester hours in gifted education

Arizona Provisional Endorsement:• 2 years full-time teach-

ing mostly gifted stu-dents, 90 clock hours of in-service training in gifted, or 6 semester hours in gifted educa-tion

Full Endorsement:• 9 semester hours in

academic discipline (graduate level or up-per division)

• 3 years full-time teaching experience in gifted, 135 clock hours of in-service training in gifted, 12 semester hours of course work in gifted, 6 semester hours of practicum/2 years full-time teaching mostly gifted students (chose 2 of these op-tions)

for Gifted

Education


State Certification Endorsement Other Under Special

Education

Arkansas • Must complete univer-sity program in gifted education

• Pass PRAXIS II Prin-ciples of Learning and Teaching test #0521, or #0523, or #0524

California Specialist Instruction Credential in Gifted Education:• Complete an approved

specialist program with student teaching

• Obtain a recommenda-tion from a College/ University

Colorado • Endorsement for Gift-ed Education Specialist

• Must complete a state approved university program in gifted edu-cation

Connecticut • Any appropriately certified teacher

Delaware • 3 years teaching expe-rience

• Must complete univer-sity program in gifted education

Florida • 15 semester credit hours of course work in gifted education

Georgia • Must complete a state approved university pro-gram in gifted education

Hawaii • No specific gifted program, it is included under special education

Idaho • 20 semester credit hours of course work in gifted education

Illinois • No specific program

Indiana • Gifted is a content area (like Math and Science) that can be added onto certification and placed at any level

• Programs based on content standards (do not need a masters)

• Under Special Educa-tion, but stands on its own due to licensure



Iowa • Master’s Degree• Student teaching full-

time in appropriate and approved special education class

• Under special education

Kansas • Gifted Education Endorsement

Kentucky • Gifted Education Endorsement

Louisiana • Master’s Degree with course work in gifted education

• 3 semester hours of practicum, internship, or 3 years all in teach-ing academically gifted

Maine • 12 semester of graduate work

Maryland • Any appropriately certified teacher

Massachusetts • Academically Ad-vanced teacher licen-sure PreK-8. 12 credits of graduate level work in gifted education.

Michigan • Special Ed Endorse-ment that includes Gifted and Talented

• Working on a specific endorsement for Gifted

Minnesota • No Gifted program at all, only services for disabled

Mississippi • Must have 5 year de-gree and then apply for endorsement

• Must complete a state approved university program in gifted edu-cation

Missouri • Two years teaching experience

• Minimum of 15 semes-ter hours of approved university coursework

Montana PSC (Permissive Special Competency) in Gifted:• 20 semester credit

hours in gifted


State Certification Endorsement Other Under Special

Education

Nebraska Endorsement in High Ability:• Supplemental Endorse-

ment to add to Educa-tion Endorsement

• Complete approved program in high ability

Nevada • 2 years experience• Complete a state

approved university program in gifted edu-cation or 12 semester credit hours in the area of gifted

New Hampshire • General Special Educa-tion Endorsement, but not one specific in

New Jersey • Any appropriately certified teacher

New Mexico • Any appropriately certified teacher


New York • Must complete a state approved university program in gifted edu-cation

• Pass NY State Teacher Certification Examina-tion content specialty test in gifted

North Carolina • Certified for gifted through an add-on program (no test or specific major)

North Dakota • Complete appropriate semester credit hours

• Teaching experience required

• Under Special Educa-tion, but stands on its own due to licensure

Ohio • Must complete a state approved univer-sity program in gifted education – Gifted Intervention Specialist

• Endorsement is 18 semester credit hours and a Masters is 33 credit hours

Oklahoma • No specific certification• Can take master-level

gifted classes at University

1�Winter 2007 • Tempo • Texas Association for the Gifted and Talented


Oregon • General Special Educa-tion Endorsement, but not one specific in gifted

Pennsylvania • Any appropriately certified teacher


Rhode Island • Any appropriately certified teacher

• District decides who gets to teach it

South Carolina • Must have 6 hours of graduate level credit (Nature and Needs, Intro into Curriculum)

South Dakota • Endorsement program that requires 12 se-mester hours in gifted classes and a practicum

Tennessee • Endorsement program that requires 12 se-mester hours in gifted

Texas • Must have 30 hours of professional development in gifted education or 30 hour training require-ment in one semester

• Must receive 6 hours annually on professional development in gifted education

Utah • Teaching experience• 16 hours of approved

university course work

Vermont • Any appropriately certified teacher

Virginia • Must complete a state approved university pro-gram in gifted education

Washington • Any appropriately certified teacher

West Virginia • Must complete a state approved university pro-gram in gifted education

Wisconsin • Must get the state ap-proved endorsement

Wyoming • Decided by school• Must complete a state

approved university program in gifted edu-cation


Floyd’s Story:

Teachers have a crucial role in finding, developing, and mentoring gifted students. Through anticipating and recognizing behaviors and performance that hinted at special abilities and needs the teacher should also advocate for student identification through campus com-mittees (Hickerson, 1998). This process, however, is not as easy as it sounds for there are many tricky twists and turns on the road to identification of gifted students. Some “gifted” students are some-times heavily disguised.

I would like to share the story of a most unusual fifth grade student, “Floyd”. His eventual outcome might have been quite different had it not been for a chance observation and later more astute observations as well as an insistence on testing him for the science gifted program when others saw no point.

Weather expert Edward N. Lorenz posed the question, “Does the flap of a butterfly’s wings in Brazil set off a tornado in Texas? The idea that a small action or event may set off a series of changes

that culminate in a major event in the natural world of science is astounding. Is it possible that a small input may result in large out-put? Masterpasqua & Perna (1997) believe that a tiny change, a small gesture, a single spoken word may have a profound effect, not only in the natural sciences, but also on human thought and action as well. Many developmental scientists believe this phenomenon, the “butterfly effect,” to be authentic. This leads me to the “Floyd” story. It was one of the most profound experiences I had as an elementary science teacher. The possible endings to this story, other than the real one, still disturb me.

My fifth grade science classroom contained mainstreamed children served through special education and other special needs programs. When the assistant principal introduced Floyd she commented, “Don’t expect much from him.” Those words were like “throwing the gauntlet on the ground”—a challenge if you will. Having a student from whom little or nothing would be expected was not appealing.

A Gifted Child in DisguiseBy Margaret Hammer


The assistant principal provided little insight as to Floyd’s schooling only that he could barely print his name, he was a loner who rarely communicated with students or teach-ers, and he was a fifth grader performing on a second grade level.

After further inquiry of the assistant prin-cipal, she did not know the cause. He was an excellent kindergartner, had achieved all A’s in first and second grade. However, in the third grade he began an academic downward spiral which was only gaining momentum. No one, including his parents, seemed to know why. I Had Floyd bee in an accident? Was he ever critically ill? Did he ever have an extremely high fever? The answers were consistently no.

During my inquiry-based, hands-on, total immersion science classes, students worked in collaborative teams. Expectations and my stu-dents responded positively. Floyd was treated no differently. Floyd was monitored closely to see how best to serve him as time progressed. He held his pencil in a full handgrip, much like an assailant who was about to stab a victim would hold a knife, as he printed his name in three-inch-tall letters taking up a whole sheet of notebook paper.

The administrator was right about one issue. Floyd was a loner and an apathetic student. Although he was on a lab team, he was there in body only. Peers complained of his failure to contribute and he did not disagree or agree.

The DiscoveryOne morning the Odyssey of the Mind

(OM) team of gifted students met in a corner of the room near Floyd’s desk. These seven students were soon to compete in a creative problem solving competition. The OM prob-lem had arrived and their task this year was to design and create a dual-powered (only one of which could be human power) vehicle. This vehicle would have to travel a course and allow the driver to rescue things that needed saving. Judging would be based on the uniqueness of their vehicle design, the creativity they dis-played in their selection of things that needed rescuing, and their completion of the task in a nine-minute time span.

As the OM team was leaving the corner, Floyd offered a solution to the OM problem with an intricate drawing of a vehicle design complete with labels. This was not the work Floyd typically produced. Concealing my shock, I told him, “Floyd, this is really great, but the team has to come up with their own solution. Even I am not allowed to offer sug-gestions.” He looked disappointed. Floyd’s preference for working alone and general dis-interest did not make him a natural candidate for the OM team.

The class started working on their lab in-vestigation, and Floyd was doing his usual—fidgeting with his pencil and paper. I walked over to his desk, tapped my finger on his paper, looked him in the eye, and said slowly

in a quiet, but serious voice, “I know.” After a second or so I continued my rounds, keeping him in my peripheral vision. It was as though I could hear the gears turning in his head as he picked up the pencil in his signature full-hand-grip. “What does she know?” he prob-ably wondered. When I worked my way back to Floyd, he had made some progress, but he was still dallying. I looked him straight in the eye again and in the same quiet, serious voice I slowly said, “I know (paused) and you know I know.” With that I simply tapped my index finger on his paper and moved on once again. He started writing. His charade was up.

After that day, Floyd began to participate, interact, and even argue his point-of-view with fellow students from time to time. He, along with his science lab team members, presented their science investigations to the class. He still printed all written assignments, as he had never learned cursive writing.

Near the end of the fifth grade year, the prin-cipal asked for a list of students that should be tested for the sixth grade Gifted and Talented Science Program. Floyd’s name was entered. The diagnostician and the principal thought it was a joke. I told them that someone might be needed to read the test to him since he wasn’t supposedly reading on the fifth grade level. Floyd, without assistance, scored exceedingly well on the test, definitely qualifying for the program. An Admission, Review, & Dismissal (ARD) meeting was scheduled to inform his parents of his progress and to present instruc-tional plans (IEP) for the next school year.

Floyd’s father is a large man and consider-ably older than Floyd’s mother. When told of Floyd’s success on the G/T science test, his fa-ther literally leapt from his chair, raised his fist in the air, and shouted, “I knew it, I knew it, I knew it!” Floyd’s father had always believed his son was bright despite his poor performance in school. The principal quickly added that Floyd would continue to be served through special education in reading and math as he was still functioning more than two years below grade level in those areas.

During that ARD meeting it was learned that his parents divorced in Floyd’s third grade year. The only time his parents came together in the same room was during ARD meetings. Floyd figured out that if he played the role of a child with learning difficulties, his parents would appear together at the ARD meetings. He, like many children of divorced parents, had never given up hope of his parents reuniting.

As a result of Floyd’s charade for three years, he was seriously behind in reading and math. What he had done to his intellectual growth was analogous to taping one’s healthy right arm to one’s chest and not using it for three years. Although the arm might still be viable to some extent, it would eventually become weak and atrophy. If the arm is untaped before total atrophy occurs, it can, with use and exercise, become its former self. Floyd’s mind had not

been exercised in quite a while. The spark overheard in the OM meeting was too much for him to ignore and his disguise momentarily slipped off.

After 17 years of teaching in the elemen-tary/intermediate grades, I have seen—un-fortunately—many children who suffered emotionally over the divorce of their parents. One school year we had so many fourth grade students in a divorce situation, the principal asked me to start a support group that met once a week during physical education time. One idea these students never seemed to discard was the hope that their parents would reunite. Another idea they shared was that it was somehow their fault the parents had divorced. Floyd was no exception. As long as he appeared to have serious learning disabili-ties, his parents would come together for the ARD.

The next year in sixth grade, Floyd was placed in G/T science, and made up a little more than two years in math and three years in reading. He was no longer served in the re-source classroom. There were no more ARDs. His parents did not reunite. He continued, however, to come by my classroom the fol-lowing year to visit and to bring me little gifts (mostly homemade). I still have them.

The What Ifs…What if that OM meeting that morning had

not been in the corner of the room by Floyd’s desk? What if Floyd had not been eavesdrop-ping? Would Floyd’s secret been discovered? Did that one small moment in time have a pro-found effect on his future? Would his charade have continued until real, perhaps irreversible harm had been inflicted? There must have been a butterfly flapping its wings somewhere!

References

Hickerson, B. (1998). From the president, Tempo, 18(2), 2, 24 -25.

Masterpasqua, F. & Perna, P. A. (Eds.). (1997). The psychological meaning of-chaos: Translating theory into practice. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.


Advantages and Challenges of Being Gifted in Rural AmericaBy Barbara Holland

To Be Young, Gifted, &


To Be Young, Gifted, & RuralWhile gifted students often have their share

of challenges, rural gifted students face unique obstacles that their urban or suburban coun-terparts do not. While growing up and being educated in a rural environment has distinct advantages for gifted students, there are also numerous hurdles particular to rural gifted education. A national assessment of rural gifted education reports that rural schools are in every state, comprise 50% of all public schools, and 39% of all public school students (Colangelo, Assouline, & New, 1999). With numbers like these, educators and govern-mental leaders need to become more aware of problems facing all students in rural America, not just the gifted, and search for ways to compensate for those limitations. This ex-amination of current research in rural gifted education looks at the benefits of being gifted in a rural school, the most common challenges or obstacles to adequately serving the needs of gifted students in rural districts, and several innovative strategies, along with the potential impact of technology.

According to The Rural School and Community Trust (2006), there are more ru-ral school students in Texas than in any other state, and 23% of its public schools are in rural areas, even though its rural enrollment is less than 13% of Texas’ total student population. The United States Department of Agriculture reports that 196 (77%) of Texas’ 254 counties are rural and that 57 (22%) of these counties are completely rural—containing no town with a population of 2,500 or more (Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts, 2001). The challenge facing educators of students who are both rural and gifted should be a prime concern for Texas education.

One problem inherent in any serious study of gifted rural education is the varied defini-tions of what exactly constitutes “rural” in America today. Gone are the days when “rural” meant agricultural. Many studies gravitate to similar definitions of non-metropolitan areas of less than 2,500 people. Farming as an ac-tual way of making a living affects very few people in today’s society; most students who would be classified as “rural” would not fit the stereotype of the white farm kid showing his or her prized bull in 4-H competitions or competing in barrel racing and roping events.

In fact, rural student populations include groups as diverse as the children of Russian Old Believers in an isolated village of Alaska, Native American children on reservations, children of Appalachian coal miners, and chil-dren of Hispanic migrant workers. (Colangelo, Assouline, & New, 2001).

AdvantagesBefore discussing the challenges facing

gifted education in rural schools, it is im-portant to acknowledge the positive effects of rural schools upon gifted students. Also important is that these positive benefits ap-ply to all students in rural schools, not just the gifted. Students in these smaller settings benefit from more individualized attention from their teachers and other staff members. More trusting relationships are formed due to greater familiarity among students and faculty. There exists greater opportunities for involve-ment in school activities, many times even in multiple activities, due to a smaller number of students. Parents and community members tend to be more involved in school matters and activities (Colangelo et al., 1999).

Cross and Burney (2005) cite that students are more positive about school and have higher academic self-concepts, show aca-demic achievement that is equal to urban and suburban students, have fewer disciplinary incidents and better attendance, participate in extracurricular activities at higher rates, have a lower drop-out rate, and report a greater sense of belonging. They also note that economically disadvantaged and minority students show the most benefit from attending small schools. Gifted students in rural schools view the competition to be recognized for academic excellence, specifically the race for valedictorian honors, as a positive experience; gifted students in urban and suburban areas report anxiety and stress. They have greater opportunities to develop student leadership skills because of the chances to participate in many different types of activities.

Rural gifted students value the family-like atmosphere and community connection they felt in their rural schools and view teachers as more important than their urban/subur-ban counterparts. They respond more to the enthusiasm, friendliness, and respect shown

by their teachers rather than to any specific training (Hollingsworth, 2003). Another strength in rural schools is the greater degree of autonomy enjoyed by teachers to design curriculum more closely suited to the indi-vidual students and the local educational en-vironment (Montgomery, 2004). Many rural gifted students report that the “stigma of gift-edness” was not as harmful because they were associated in the minds of others with their extracurricular activities rather than just their academic talent. Gifted students are “less likely to be seen in the one dimension of giftedness, but rather as composites of their activities and talents” (Cross & Burney, 2005, p.149).

ChallengesWhile acknowledging the strengths of rural

gifted education, educators must address the challenges and obstacles to comprehensive and effective services for gifted students in rural schools, which include: • A lack of community resources, such

as museums, libraries, and professional mentors with which to augment school resources and facilities.

• A lack of a sizeable peer base for gifted students.

• A lack of time for student involvement in additional programming, such as com-munity college courses.

• Difficulties in hiring teachers, especially those with advanced training and experi-ence.

• Lack of Advanced Placement classes and an over-emphasis on community college classes for gifted students.

• Lack of training for teachers and administra-tors on issues of gifted education.

• Limited curricula due to small student populations and the need for remedial courses that compete for teacher time and resources.

• Accusations of “elitism” by community members.

• A sense of isolation for teachers dedicated to trying new methods and/or serving gifted and talented students.

(Colangelo, Assouline, & New, 2001, p. 4).The nationwide movement towards stan-

dards is also seen as an obstacle to effective services for rural gifted students. Colangelo et

Winter 2007 • Tempo • Texas Association for the Gifted and Talented18

al. (2001) assert that the standards movement has led to mediocrity for all. Small staffs lead to few teachers with the specialized training needed for Advanced Placement (AP) classes and also to fewer choices of advanced courses. Even when those AP and honors classes are available, gifted students often will not select them because of concern over grade point av-erages (GPAs); grades are often more impor-tant than course content. Gifted students often miss out on after-school opportunities because of extended travel times (Colangelo et al.). Cross and Burney (2005) note that counselors in rural schools seem unaware that quality of curriculum is more indicative of college suc-cess than GPA. The dearth of educational op-portunities appropriate to the abilities of rural gifted individuals “may influence psychologi-cal well-being” due to the lack of “educational fit” (Cross & Burney, p. 149). They also note that in particularly small schools students can suffer from teacher ineffectiveness; because of small staff sizes, these ineffective teachers often teach more than one grade level, some-times in more than one department, resulting in students being negatively impacted by the same teacher in more than one instance or electing not to take certain courses in order to avoid this particular teacher.

Consolidation of small rural schools into larger entities is also noted as a detriment to rural gifted education. Colangelo et al. (1999) note that consolidation continues to be a trend in spite of evidence that small schools have lower dropout rates, socio-economically disadvantaged students do better in smaller settings, and participation in all areas is dramatically higher in smaller rural schools. Due to geographical isolation of many rural schools, teachers often do not have easy access to further training at universities, curricular materials, or research; they have fewer op-portunities to network and share with other teachers of the gifted. Students also suffer from lack of exposure to a wider range of pos-sible professions, and from fewer chances to interact with peers of similar interests and abilities (Colangelo et al.).

The high level of poverty often found in ru-ral areas also impacts rural gifted education. While these problems are certainly not exclu-sive to rural students, they still need to be con-sidered when making decisions on how to best service rural gifted students. Issues impacting students caught in rural poverty, especially generational poverty, include little exposure to opportunities outside the immediate area, a seeming lack of relevance of education to their present reality of poverty, the use of incorrect grammar or inappropriate language, lack of support for learning in the home, reticence to take rigorous coursework because of having to work or family responsibilities, and too much focus on the present to the exclusion of long-range goals (Cross & Burney, 2005).

Rural students often face the dilemma of

remaining in their rural community or seek-ing opportunities in larger towns and cities. Howley, Harmon, and Leopold (1996) speak of choosing the “good” life rather than the “mobility, acquisitiveness, and status” of the “happy” life; they advocate a movement of “continued rootedness” in rural communi-ties for gifted students (p. 150). While rural teachers and counselors encourage academic excellence for their gifted students: the inevi-table choice for these students will be whether to stay or to leave. Lawrence (1999) concurs that students are being given the message that they are not as intellectually capable as students who choose to leave their rural com-munity. She states that not only does rural America need its gifted students, those gifted students need their rural communities. “The other reason bright rural students should be encouraged to develop their talents and invest themselves in their rural communities is that doing so will be good for them—will reduce the tension they feel and their own sense of cognitive dissonance” (Lawrence, p. 5). She also notes, “those who stay home feel second-rate. Whether they stay because they love their families and communities, and they love the way of life, and the place, many still feel they have to apologize for their lack of ambition and initiative” (Lawrence, p. 6). Society must work toward stopping the “out-migration” that drains the best and brightest from rural America.

Technology is seen as a way of equalizing opportunities for rural gifted students in geo-graphically isolated areas. However, Colangelo et al. (1999) refer to this as a “myth,” stating that technology (delivery of advanced materials via the Internet, teleconferencing, etc.) will not “equalize” opportunities. Technology cannot replace peer interaction or collective work and only partially provides for the affective needs of gifted rural students. Technology ideas also become quickly outdated. Rural schools often lack the infrastructure and resources to use available technology, with connectivity being a major impediment for many impoverished rural districts who struggle with simply main-taining their buildings.

Given the concerns of Colangelo et al. that technology cannot by itself provide for the needs of the rural gifted, there are innovative uses of technology to deliver advanced or ac-celerated content to the rural gifted. Belcastro (2002) is an outspoken advocate of the use of technology to “expand the world of rural gifted students” (p. 1). Numerous distance learning sites offering college and high school on-line learning and tutoring are available for rural gifted students. The Education Program for Gifted Youth at Stanford University (EPGY) provides computer-based courses in math-ematics for rural middle and high school stu-dents through CD-ROMs, allowing students to advance at their own pace. Many universities now offer free online educational opportuni-

ties for gifted rural students, such as MIT’s OpenCourseWare (ocw.mit.edu). Belcastro also cites several state supported schools, such as the A. Linwood Holton Governor’s School for rural gifted students in Virginia, that use electronic technology designed especially for gifted students. He also advocates use of specialized technology to enable rural gifted students who are deaf or have motor impair-ments of the hands (Belcastro 2004, 2005). Hollingsworth (2003) notes that Internet us-age is on the rise in rural areas as computer prices become more affordable, decreasing the isolation that some rural gifted students expe-rience. She notes that not only are advanced courses in foreign language, arts, math, and science available through technology, but also self-help counseling in topics such as perfectionism, procrastination, stress, and anxiety; the State University of New York at Buffalo, the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, and the University of Oregon are examples of self-help resources. Technology is not panacea for rural gifted education but it is a valuable educational tool to provide academically challenging curricula and to network with other students of similar abili-ties and interests.

Challenges facing educators trying to service gifted students in rural settings are nearly overwhelming, yet groups across the country are trying to meet some, if not all, of the needs of these students in innovative ways. Howley (2002) notes that acceleration is successful when planning is focused on in-dividual needs, instructional materials are at appropriate levels, teachers closely monitor progress, and program evaluation is required and on-going. As scheduling is a major hurdle, Jackson County, West Virginia, is a prime ex-ample where educational leaders realize that no one program of acceleration was going to meet the needs of every school in the system. Elementary principals are allowed to work out programs that meet the needs of her or his school, resulting in grade skipping, cross-grade grouping, gifted teachers delivering advanced instruction, acceleration in only one subject, or even radical acceleration in some cases. High schools in the district offer the usual AP and Honors options, as well as, students moving at their own accelerated pace and sequence, early graduation, and college classes being offered at the school.

Colangelo et al. (1999) highlight several schools or programs, including the North Carolina Clarkton School of Discovery, a mag-net middle school open to all, with a school within a school, Project Challenge, for gifted students. All students take core subjects in the morning, with gifted students receiving their instruction from teachers with training in gifted education; afternoons are for elec-tives which are heterogeneously grouped. The Environmental Health Sciences Institute for Rural Youth from the University of Iowa of-


fers a one week summer study in research and problem solving focusing on the environment, agricultural occupations, human health in ru-ral Iowa, and other topics of local importance. During this time rural gifted students benefit from mentoring, working in labs along side professors as members of a research team, as well as working on individual projects. Michigan’s Math/Science/Technology Center uses accelerated programming to serve stu-dents from eight middle schools; each year 26 new ninth-graders are admitted. For a half day students attend their regular schools for non-math and science coursework; the other half day is at the Center for a compacted high school curriculum for the first two years, then enrollment at nearby Ferris State University for the last two years. Cross and Burney (2005) describe Project Aspire, as an attempt to increase the number of rural, high ability students taking challenging math and science coursework; strategies include counseling, of-fering AP courses through distance learning, tutoring, and making pre-AP curriculum avail-able in the middle and high schools through vertical planning teams.

Hollingsworth (2003) strongly advocates contact with university-sponsored programs, saying that “university programs of all kinds can make a difference” in the lives of rural gifted students. They “offer rural gifted students a small manageable experience of college life” and “may give them the confidence and expe-rience needed to succeed when it comes time for the real thing” (p.122-123). The Center for Arts and Sciences at the University of Tulsa’s University School offers summer workshops for students and their teachers which seek to overcome the sense of isolation felt by both groups because of the “low value placed on intelligence and intellectual pursuits” (p. 123) in their communities. This program encour-ages a sense of community not only for the students, but also for the teachers who now network with other teachers throughout the state. A unique aspect of this program is that it reaches out to parents, inviting them to come to the campus for several events, resulting in the parents’ connectivity to their child’s gifted-ness and with the college environment.

Hollingsworth (2003) also discusses Project SPRING (Special Populations Resource Information Network for the Gifted), a con-sortium of Indiana University, New Mexico University, and Converse College of South Carolina. Project SPRING allows students to interact with each other and teaches them ways to access information and educational opportunities from colleges. The Educational Telephone Network (ETN) operated out of the University of Wisconsin, provides oppor-tunities for isolated rural teachers to receive training and to network with other teachers of the gifted. Colangelo et al. (2001) profile six small rural schools that developed practices to meet the needs of the local gifted and talented

populations. Each of these schools respects “local students and their backgrounds, the landscape, and the heritage of place” and “the needs and heritage of their communities” (p. 12).

A common thread among the literature on gifted and rural students focuses on the need not to make rural schools like urban or subur-ban schools, but to meet these students needs while honoring their “sense of place” and pre-serving the distinct advantages of small rural education. With nearly 17,500,000 students involved, “clearly, rural education is not a part of our past, and issues related to rural educa-tion cannot be dismissed (Colangelo, et al., 1999, p. 9).

References

Belcastro, F. D. (2002). Electronic technol-ogy and its use with rural gifted students. Roeper Review, 25, 14. Retrieved October 12, 2006 from the Academic Search Premier database.

Belcastro, F. D. (2004). Rural gifted students who are deaf or hard of hearing: How electronic technology can help. American Annals of the Deaf, 149, 309-313. Retrieved October 12, 2006 from the Academic Search Premier database.

Belcastro, F. D. (2005). Electronic technology: Hope for rural gifted students who have motor impairment of the hands. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 17, 237 247. Retrieved October 12, 2006 from the Academic Search Premier database.

Colangelo, N., Assouline, S. G., & New, J. K. (1999). Gifted education in rural schools: A national assessment. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 430766). Retrieved October 11, 2006 from the EBSCOhost Research Database.

Colangelo, N., Assouline, S., & New, J. K. (2001). Gifted voices from rural America. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 463916). Retrieved October 11, 2006 from the EBSCOhost Research Database.

Cross, T. L., & Burney, V. H. (2005). High ability, rural, and poor: Lessons from Project Aspire and implications for school counselors. The Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 16, 148-156. Retrieved October 11, 2006 from the Academic Search Premier database.

Hollingsworth, P. (2003). Rural gifted stu-dents: Isolated and alone? In J. F. Smutny (Ed.), Underserved Gifted Populations (pp. 117-127). Cresskill, New Jersey: Hampton Press, Inc.

Howley, A. (2002). The progress of gifted students in a rural district that emphasized acceleration strategies. Roeper Review, 24, 158. Retrieved October 13, 2006 from the Academic Search Premier database.

Lawrence, B. K. (1999). Diversities of gifts: The role of giftedness in the sustainability of rural schools and rural communities. (ERIC

Document Reproduction Service No. ED 463920). Retrieved October 11, 2006 from the EBSCOhost Research Database.

Milligan, J. (2004). Leadership skills of gifted students in a rural setting: Promising programs for leadership development. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 23, 16-21. Retrieved October 12, 2006 from the Academic Search Premier database.

Montgomery, D. (2004). Broadening perspec-tives to meet the needs of gifted learners in rural schools. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 23, 3-7. Retrieved October 12, 2006 from the Academic Search Premier database.

Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts (2001, February). Rural Texas in transition. Retrieved December 23, 2006, from http://www.window.state.tx.us/specialrpt/rural/summary.html

The Rural School and Community Trust (2006). Helping rural schools and communi-ties get better together. Retrieved December 23, 2006, from http://www.ruraledu.org/site/c.beJMIZOCIrH/b.1069533/k.BBA7/Texas.htm

21

Driving PassionBy Barbara Hoggan

Arnav was born on October 4, 2003 in suburban Chicago. From infancy, he exhibited an affinity for cars. At one, Arnav studies his collection of toy cars with inquisitive eyes. At 15 months, he visited his grandfather in India and demanded to be put behind the wheel. At 18 months, he began observantly looking at the cars on TV commercials, streets, billboards, parking lots and magazines. Neither his mother nor his father could explain why Arnav chose to focus on cars, since the parents had shown no interest in them beyond their functional value.

Arnav initially heard the makes and models of certain cars on TV commercials but soon that was not enough. To quench his curiosity, he would ask his parents the make or model of a car parked or passing by and would have it etched in his mind. He would leaf through classified ads from Cars.com and recite the makes to himself, sometimes coming to his parents to point out the ones he did not know. Whether he picked up the make or the model from the TV commercials or through his parents, he never forgot after looking at them once. Shortly thereafter, he started to connect the make of the cars by the insignia on them and by the time he was two years old, he knew more makes and models than most adults. Even though he could not read the words, he seemed to have no problem retaining and pronouncing the models of most cars.


Arnav was born here in the United States but has been to India a couple of times to visit his grandparents and other extended family. His parents speak Hindi at home, which is the national language of India, but communicate with him for the most part in English. Arnav speaks English and knows some Hindi as well.

Over the past year, Arnav’s knowledge about cars has grown by leaps and bounds. He no longer requires an emblem to determine the make, just a subtle name engraving (e.g.: Dodge, Saturn, etc.). Sometimes not even that is required for Arnav to identify cars. Additionally, he has started relating the mod-els of the cars with their makes. To date, Arnav can identify almost every make of the cars that are seen in the United States, along with sev-eral models by just a glimpse at them.

Once, at an auto dealership, a dealer had car keys from several different makes strewn on the table. Most of them did not have the logo on them, just the make spelled out. Arnav identified each one of them correctly without fail. The dealer was flabbergasted and could not believe what he was observing. At Carmax, he identified Chevy Monte Carlo from the front even though it didn’t have the standard Chevrolet logo. He also identified some of the Dodge and Saturn cars that had no logos at all, Saab, Scion and Jaguar makes that are not seen as much on the roads and a lot of other makes in their fleet without getting a single one incorrect.

During visits to his pediatrician, Arnav of-ten flips through the magazines in the waiting lounge looking for a car’s advertisement and identifies each one to the people waiting in the area, leaving them spellbound. Traffic jams are annoying to most people but being in one with Arnav can be a fun experience. While sitting in his car seat, he looks out the windows in all directions and rattles off the makes as the cars pass by: “Dodge Stratus, Toyota Camry, Audi TT Roadster, Acura MDX, Volkswagen Passat, Saturn Vue, Hyundai Sonata, Honda Accord, BMW 5 Series...,” entertaining everybody. Arnav has a fleet of toy cars in his collection ranging from collectibles to the big powered ones, from modern to classic, in a variety of makes and models.

Without a doubt, the credit for this preco-cious skill goes to none other than Arnav him-self as he was never given any formal lessons or talked about the cars at length. At times, he would ask his parents about certain makes and models but seldom questioned the same car twice. His affinity for cars led him to pick this up all by himself. This off-the-wall knack of Arnav is admired and marveled by one and all. Sometimes, people find it amusing to watch him in action, listening dumbfound as he blurts out every make and model of the car that passes by.

Perspectives from the Field, by Barbara Hoggan

I became acquainted with Abhinav, Arnav’s father, through my Gifted Parents web site created while a doctoral student and Research Assistant for Dr. Sayler at the University of North Texas. I have been asked to comment on Arnav’s great talent and advanced develop-ment in an effort to bring some light to parents and teachers about the nature of young gifted children such as Arnav.

How does an 18-month-old toddler come to embrace car identification as a passion? Moreover, how does a two year-old become highly skilled at one task at such a young age? At three, he became a big brother for the first time to twin girls. He had been an only child to parents who previously showed little to no interest in automobiles. His father works in the computer industry and his mother is a housewife. Cars have not been a natural topic of conversation in this household until Arnav focused much of his attention on them.

Obviously, Arnav’s life has not been totally devoid of exposure to cars. He grew up riding in them, watching them drive past him, and seeing them in magazines and on television. These are the typical visual representations most children in our country experience, yet rarely will a toddler so intensely attach himself to this area of interest.

A deep interest in and knowledge about some interest areas, while atypical for most two-year-olds, is typical of some gifted chil-dren, and more so of highly gifted ones (Sayler, 1992). Harrison, an expert in early childhood education and gifted education, partially de-fines a gifted child as one who performs in one or more domains at a level significantly beyond his or her age (1999). Arnav’s uncanny knack for naming cars for over a year before his third birthday would be considered precocious by most standards. Young gifted children also show intense interest and curiosity, and have the ability to learn immeasurable amounts of information about their interests due to their excellent memories and vast language capaci-ties (Harrison, 2004; Jackson, 2003; Rogers, 2006).

Virtually all gifted, even the very young, are intense by nature (Webb et al, 2005). Their intense interests are fed by their ability to acquire details, which in turn, deepens their understanding of the topic. They enjoy sharing their interests with others, usually receptive adults, who are often able to add to their store of knowledge.

According to Dabrowski, gifted children exhibit their intensities, or overexcitabilites, in a variety of domains: intellectual, imagina-tional, emotional, psychomotor, and sensual (Piechowski, 2002). Often a highly able child will possess several. Intensely curious children, those who persistently ask thoughtful ques-tions, and are deeply contemplative have an intellectual overexcitability. Those who have

rich imaginations marked by make believe and daydreaming possess an imaginational overexcitability. Highly empathetic children who are sensitive to others’ feelings, whether they be human beings, animals, or even inani-mate objects, have emotional overexcitability. Psychomotor overexcitabilites are evident in children who have high energy levels, who have the need to fidget, speak unusually quickly, or show heightened enthusiasm. Finally, sensual overexcitability involves the intense reaction one feels with any of the five senses. Sensually sensitive children may show fervent objection to certain fabrics, tags, a smell, or even a subtle sound. On the other hand, they may also take intense pleasure in certain music, art, tastes, or smells.

Arnav is intensely curious, possesses an excellent memory, and is highly mobile and enthusiastic, revealing at least two overexcit-abilites; psychomotor and intellectual, as evi-denced by his passion for his topic, machine gun verbal speed, and his energy in motion.

Gifted children drawn to complexity of thought are rarely satisfied with how much they know now; they want to know more and know it deeply. Arnav is hungry to assimilate the traits of many cars and their myriad of dif-ferences so better to identify their uniqueness. Someday, he may reach his point of saturation and begin a new exploration. While Arnav’s interests may change in time, the persistent need to understand, ask questions, and solve problems will continue throughout his life.

The simple acquisition of facts does not generally satisfy the young gifted mind, which often seeks more complex understandings (Harrison, 2004). Arnav has a fervor for com-plexity. “Black” car is not descriptive enough for Arnav; he needs to relate to cars by their dual names, regardless of the number of syl-lables or difficulty in pronunciation. Consider the myriad of design details that distinguish one similar car to another. There is a com-plex geometric combination of lines, angles, and curves that form each make and model. Arnav not only internalizes each detail, but he is able to ignore bolder characteristics that would otherwise distract another child; paint, physical condition, and various accessories. He masters these intricate details in a moment, and eagerly searches for his next, new model.

Arnav is not unlike most gifted young chil-dren, in that he has great enthusiasm for top-ics that attract his interest, and he shows high energy at times, with phases of immobility due to prolonged concentration. Children of high ability levels tend to possess psychomotor overexcitabilites, which present their parents with physical and emotional challenges during the day. The full time care giver is faced with the daunting task of providing enough mental and physical stimulation to keep this child sat-isfied over the period of the child’s waking day. While most household budgets cannot keep up with the mountain of puzzles, toys, and

2�

gadgets that would keep a gifted child happily engaged, interest can be facilitated through liberal use of library materials, playmates with common interests, physical activities, and a few challenging activities set up in the home that are rotated to maintain attention. Optimally, a gifted child’s playmates are of the same age and at the same level of intellectual develop-ment or interest level. Since a same-age peer connection may not be possible, the child will engage more readily with an older friend who can carry on conversations that are relevant to the gifted child than with a peer of the same age who does not understand the child’s topic of conversation nor the reason for his passion (Olszewksi-Kubilius, Limburg-Weber, Pfeiffer, 2003).

Pre-school teachers of young gifted children lead advanced topics of conversation with their students. The pace of the curriculum is quick, varied, and at a level of complexity that promotes depth of thought. It allows the chil-dren to expend their energies physically and mentally in an environment that recognizes emotional sensitivities and frustrations that occur when the mind and the body are not in sync. When a child is able to work on projects of particular interest, however, larger time frames are needed, as the child will exhibit a long attention span (Damiani, 1997).

Parents may benefit from knowing that visual learners like Arnav thrive on pictures, models, and actual representations of their objects of interest. Since Arnav loves automo-biles, he readily enjoys car magazines, books, and going to car shows and dealerships with his family. He likes to play with his model cars and riding in his child-sized battery-run Hummer. Since visual learners enjoy challeng-ing puzzles, Arnav might relish puzzles with images of various auto models. They typically learn the big idea before breaking it down to its simpler parts. So, if Arnav shows inter-est in reading, he will most likely respond to reading sight words more readily than phonics (Silverman, n.d.).

Pre-school teachers of visual learners pres-ent new material as a whole before introduc-ing its parts (Silverman, n.d.). These students appreciate teachers who explain what the les-son will cover before beginning the unit. For instance, if the unit of study is transportation, movement from place to place in general is explored before cars, planes, trucks, boats, and space ships. These learners also respond well to exposure to foreign languages, which would enrich and challenge their minds in the pre-school setting. It is advisable, however, to provide games, cards, pictures, and other visual cues in order to facilitate their need to learn pictorially.

Although the origin of Arnav’s fervor is un-known, his interest is supported by his parents. Whether this intense focus continues on into the preschool years and kindergarten remains to be seen. Still, Arnav remains the driver not only of his toy cars, but of his passions as well.

References

Damiani, V. B. (1997). Young gifted children in research and practice. Gifted Child Today Magazine, 20(3), 18-24.

Harrison, C. (1999). Giftedness in early child-hood. Sydney, Australia: Gifted Education Research Resource and Information Centre.

Harrison, C. (2004). Giftedness in early child-hood: The search for complexity and con-nection. Roeper Review, 26, 78-84.

Jackson, N. E. (2003). Young gifted children. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of Gifted Education (pp. 470-482). Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.

Olszewksi-Kubilius, P., Limburg-Weber, L., & Pfeiffer, S. (Eds.). (2003). Early gifts: Recognizing and nurturing children’s talents. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

Piechowski, M. M. (2002). From William James to Maslow and Dabrowski: Excitability of character and self-actualization. In D. Ambrose, L. Cohen, & A. J. Tannenbaum (Eds.) Creative Intelligence: Toward a Theoretic Integration (pp. 283-322). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

Reis, S. (2006, September). Schoolwide en-richment model – reading. Presentation at the Distinguished Lecture Series 2006-07, Southern Methodists University School of Education and Human Development Gifted Students Institute. Dallas, TX.

Rogers, K. (n.d.). Characteristics of giftedness. Retrieved October 8, 2006, from http://www.gifteddevelopment.com/What_is_Gifted/characgt.htm

Sayler, M. F. (1992, November). Helping par-ents of primary gifted students make better referrals. Presented at the annual meeting of the Texas Association of the Gifted and Talented. Austin, TX.

Silverman, L. K. (n.d.). Identifying visual-spatial and auditory-sequential learners: A validation study. Retrieved October 8, 2006, from http://www.visualspatial.org/Articles/idvsls.pdf

What the research says About Gifted

students who have learning disabilities

by susan K. Johnsen, Karen rollins, & Alexandra shiu


Learning disabilities can affect in-dividuals of all ability levels. Albert Einstein, Thomas Edison, Leonardo DaVinci, Walt Disney, Whoopi Goldberg, Lindsay Wagner, and Robin Williams are all reported to have learning disabilities (Fetzer, 2000). These people are often re-ferred to as “twice exceptional” because they must adapt to both their disability and their giftedness, which can create remarkable talents or strengths in one area and disabling weaknesses in others (Baum, 1990). In many instances, these gifted students are overlooked when us-ing traditional identification procedures because their gifts are often masked by their disabilities, and they are not iden-tified until they are older (Dole, 2000; Fetzer, 2000; Holliday, Koller, & Thomas, 1999; Igleheart, 1998; Karnes, Shaunessy, & Bisland, 2004; Reis, McGuire, & Neu, 2000). For example, who would consider a struggling reader or a child who can’t write a coherent sentence to be gifted? Researchers tend to agree that if these students are not served, in both of their exceptionality areas, it is likely that they will never reach their potential (Holliday, Koller, & Thomas).

Using Baum’s (1990) definition, this review examined articles published since 1996 in Gifted Child Quarterly, Gifted Child Today, Journal for the Education of the Gifted, and Roeper Review. All articles whose focus was on gifted students with learning disabilities were included, even those that were primarily descriptive in nature. Other disabilities such as ADHD and autism disorders were excluded. These selection criteria yielded only 17 articles with eight of these using qualitative re-search methods such as case studies and narrative inquiries (Coleman, 2001; Dole, 2001; Fiedler, 1999; Hettinger & Knapp, 2001; Hua, 2002; Igleheart, 1998; Reis, McGuire, & Neu, 2000; Thrailkill, 1998). The two quantitative studies used surveys and questionnaires to gather information (Holliday, Koller, & Thomas, 1999; Karnes, Shaunessy, & Bisland, 2004). Four of the articles studied students who had gradu-ated from high school (Holliday, Koller, & Thomas, 1999; Igleheart; Reis, McGuire, & Neu; Thrailkill); two studied students who were in high school (Fiedler; Hua); one, middle school (Coleman); one, in elemen-tary (Hettinger & Knapp); and two from all grade levels (Dole; Karnes, Shaunessy, & Bisland). While of apparent interest to

educators and parents, the low incidence of this population (e.g., an estimated 2 to 5% of the gifted population) may influence the number of articles that appear in the literature.

Researchers describe these twice excep-tional students as having a potential tal-ent and a cognitive deficit which leads to poor self-concept, lower self-esteem, poor self-efficacy, hypersensitivity, emotional ability, and high levels of frustration, anxiety, and self criticism (Bisland, 2004; Dole, 2000; Gardynik & McDonald, 2005). Those that appear to be more resilient tend to have personalities that generate positive responses from others, parents that foster self-esteem, and opportuni-ties that emerge at major life transition times (Dole). Moreover, these successful GT/LD students have realistic goals, are aware of their strengths and weaknesses, have mentors who support them, are in-volved in extracurricular activities and jobs, receive effective programming with ongoing tutoring, and have parental and external support (Dole).

The majority of the researchers em-phasized the importance of an environ-ment that nurtures these students’ gifts, attends to their disability, and provides emotional support to help them deal with their inconsistent abilities (Bisland, 2004; Dole, 2000, 2001; Fetzer, 2000; Gardynik & McDonald, 2005; Hettinger & Knapp, 2001; Hua, 2002; Little, 2001). Helping GT/LD students find an area of interest and nurturing their talent in that area ap-peared to be a key factor in their success (Fiedler, 1999; Igleheart, 1998; Little).

When programming focused on GT/LD students’ strengths, their self-concept scores were comparable to scores of gifted students (Fetzer, 2000). Moreover, their self knowledge, self acceptance, self advo-cacy, self-efficacy and self determination developed within the context of a sup-port system of positive relationships and involvement in extracurricular activities, volunteer work, and jobs (Dole, 2001; Hua, 2002). With early and successful interven-tions these students tended to compen-sate for their disabilities and select career choices that matched their abilities (Reis, McGuire, & Neu, 2000; Thrailkill, 1998).

Only one school-wide district program is described in this set of articles (Shevitz, Weinfield, Jeweler, Barnes-Robinson, 2003; Weinfeld, Barnes-Robinson, Jeweler, & Shevitz, 2002). The Wings program

identified mentors who helped gifted children with learning disabilities explore their areas of interest. Those with more severe disabilities were placed in self-contained classrooms with students who had milder disabilities and received gifted services so that they had opportunities for instruction of skills and strategies in the academic areas that were affected by the disability and mentoring in the student’s area of strength. Unfortunately, since the majority of GT/LD students only re-ceive special education assistance, their programs are more aligned with deficits rather than strengths (Holliday, Koller, & Thomas, 1999). Researchers emphasize the need for training and collaboration among special education, general educa-tion, and teachers of gifted students so that these students will receive a compre-hensive program that addresses all of their needs (Bisland, 2004; Karnes, Shaunessy, & Bisland, 2004).

Bisland, A. (2004). Using learning-strate-gies instruction with students who are gifted and learning disabled. Gifted Child Today, 27(3), 52-58.

This article gives an overview of students who are both gifted and disabled and dis-cussed learning strategies that will help them achieve academically. Special educa-tion teachers, regular education teachers, and teachers of the gifted should be aware of the unique characteristics of students who are both gifted and learning disabled and strategies to assist them in reaching their full potential. Three distinct groups of learning disabled and gifted students were identified, characteristics of these students were listed, along with the inter-ference that a learning disability can play on academic achievement (Brody & Mills, 1997). Instructional goals and the many different instructional strategies that are beneficial to the student with multiple exceptionalities were explained. Self-effi-cacy and independence of learning are key areas that should be stressed in preparing gifted/learning–disabled students for the future (Little, 2001).

Coleman, M. R. (2001). Surviving or thriv-ing? Gifted Child Today, 24(3), 56-63.

This study examined 21 gifted, middle school boys with learning disabilities. The history of the twice-exceptional child

What the research says About Gifted

students who have learning disabilities


was introduced followed by the difficulty experienced by gifted adolescents. The boys were interviewed to learn how they handled difficult school situations. Each had been diagnosed as learning disabled by the North Carolina exceptional chil-dren’s guidelines. They each had at least one measured IQ score of 125 or higher on the WISC-R. The interviews were structured around scenarios of difficult school situations. Four themes were used as a base to provide a common ground for the boy’s reactions. The individual inter-views lasted 45-90 minutes with scenarios presented around a specific situation, and each scenario included several issues de-signed to elicit responses. All interviews were taped and transcribed for analy-sis. The author coded the responses by themes and a second coder completed a cross-check for inter-rater reliability (.83). How did the students cope with their school-related problems? Many of the students commented they had never been asked to think about how they handled difficult school situations. They offered thoughtful responses and sharing their

concerns seemed to be a relief and made them aware that they were not alone in their academic and emotional struggles. Also included were strategies to cope with school difficulty.

Dole, S. (2000). The implications of the risk and resilience literature for gifted students with learning disabilities. Roeper Review, 23, 91-96.

This survey of the literature focused on why some gifted learning disabled students persist and are successful in school and life while others fail and give up. Dole emphasized gifted students with learning disabilities have exceptional re-alized or potential talent or ability but also have a deficit in auditory, visual, or memory processing that causes specific academic problems. With this group of students, characteristics that would in-crease their vulnerability included poor self-concept, poor self-efficacy, hypersen-sitivity, emotional ability, and high levels of frustration, anxiety, and self-criticism. Referencing Werner (1993), five clusters of

internal and external factors were identi-fied with 22 individuals who had learning disabilities but became successful. These clusters included personality character-istics that generated positive responses from others, skills and values, parental management that fostered self-esteem, and the emergence of opportunities at major life transition times. Other stud-ies showed that realistic goal setting, self-awareness, mentors, ongoing tutor-ing, and parental support are important. Implications from these findings indicate that early identification of a learning dis-ability, effective programming, counsel-ing, extracurricular activities and jobs, and parental and external support can contribute to the resilience and success of gifted students with learning disabilities. Dole urged for more empirical research on this topic.

Dole, S. (2001). Reconciling contradic-tions: Identity formation in individuals with giftedness and learning disabili-ties. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 25, 103-37.


The purpose of this article was to ex-plore the identity formation in four col-lege students who are gifted with learning disabilities. Narrative inquiry was chosen for this study. An important element in the research process was the participation of a group of constituents. The Constituency-Oriented Research and Dissemination (CORD) policy of the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research served as a guide to ensure that constitu-ents were represented in all phases of the research process. Purposeful sampling was used. Criteria for participants included: (a) documentation of a learning disability, (b) evidence of exceptional ability or tal-ent either by identification as gifted in grades K-12 or according to the Georgia Multiple Criteria Rule, and (c) current undergraduate or incoming freshman status at one of the state universities in Georgia. Participants were questioned in in-depth interviews over a five-month period. The interviews were unstructured and open-ended. Analysis included both narrative and paradigmatic methods. Two themes emerged in the data analysis as being integral to the identity formation of the participants: (a) identity development took place within the context of a support system formed by family, teachers, men-tors, and friends, and (b) involvement in extracurricular activities, volunteer work, and jobs. Their life stories suggested four personal themes in identity formation: self-knowledge, self-acceptance, self-advocacy, and self-determination. The stories of the participants also reflected the difficulty in comprehending the dichotomy that exists in individuals with giftedness and learning disabilities. Moreover, students with GT/LD need support to be both academically and emotionally successful.

Fetzer, E. (2000). The gifted/learning dis-abled child. Gifted Child Today, 23(4), 44-50.

This article focused on children who are twice exceptional and often overlooked and underserved in the classroom, beginning with a discussion of definitions and clas-sifications of students with gifts/learning disabilities. What makes dual exception-alities possible is that a child’s strengths and weaknesses lie in different cognitive areas (Ellston, 1993). These students tend to be paradoxical learners due to the many discrepancies in their performances. The

importance of early identification is key in order for twice exceptional students to be suc-cessful. Although traditional test scores should be included, they should not be the sole determinant for identif ica-tion. Important in the successful education of these students is an en-vironment that will nurture their gifts, attend to their dis-ability, and provide emotional support to deal with their inconsistent abili-ties (Baum, 1990). Strategies to help the twice excep-tional child include p r o g r a m m i n g , teaching strategies, the IEP, parents as advocates, and a list of positive and negative characteristics of children with gifts/learning disabilities. Teachers should focus on these students’ gifts, remediate their disabilities, and avoid serving only one exceptionality.

Fiedler, R.E. (1999). Opening gifts: John’s perspective. Gifted Child Today, 22(3), 16-17.

This article described the in-school struggles of a child who is both learning disabled and gifted. To engage John’s re-sponses on what he had to say about learn-ing, he encouraged to share his thoughts on his own learning process. Based on John’s experience strategies were offered to help others with similar learning chal-lenges:• Urgency in learning: getting to the

“good stuff” like projects; under-standing that the skills will develop,

• Listening to students more; letting them have a voice in how they learn, and

• Respect for children as humans as well as students; when respect lives in the classroom, potential for success is high.

The most critical theme that emerged from this case study showed the impor-tance of learning based on student interest.

Gardynik, U. M., & McDonald, L. (2005). Implications of risk and resilience in the life of the individual who is gifted/learning disabled. Roeper Review, 27, 206-214.

This paper provides an overview of the risk and resilience literature for gifted, learning disabled, and gifted learning-disabled individuals. Gifted learning-dis-abled students are vulnerable to negative outcomes due to their paradoxical combi-nation of gifts and disabilities. They often have the ability to compensate for their academic problems, leading to problems with identification and are frequently not given supportive interventions. Many times the hiding of learning problems caused internalized anxiety and lowered self-esteem. Earlier studies (Nielsen & Mortorff-Albert, 1989) found that when gifted programming focused on gifted learning disabled students’ strengths, their self-concept scores were comparable


to scores of gifted students. Adding to the risk factors for gifted learning disabled is the belief in the mutual exclusiveness of giftedness and learning abilities and/or the complacent belief of gifted students being able to manage high levels of suc-cess despite their learning disability. Protective factors included nurturing the students’ talents and focusing on their strengths. Early identification, teaching to the students’ abilities, self-understand-ing, and caring teachers can serve as suc-cessful interventions. The authors urged for more empirical research regarding specific protective factors to mediate the risks for this group of students.

Hettinger, H. R., & Knapp, N. F. (2001). Potential, performance, and paradox: A case study of J. P., a verbally gifted, struggling reader. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 24, 248-89.

In this case study, an 8-year-old, ver-bally gifted, struggling reader’s difficult experiences are discussed. The subjects was chosen from students participating in a remedial reading intervention pro-gram. Each student’s reading abilities and attitudes were assessed using the reading decoding and comprehension subtest of the Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement and the Elementary Reading Attitude Survey. A timed, oral-reading sample was also taken to further assess each child’s reading skills. In addition, each child was informally assessed using a small portion of the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking—Verbal. The initial evaluations led the authors to focus on J. P. A “Child’s Conceptions of Reading Interview” with J. P.; a semi-structured interview with J. P.’s mother; and conver-sations between one of the authors and J. P. were the primary sources of data in this study. Other sources of data included artifacts, such as assessment instruments, pictures J.P. drew as part of the interviews, and teacher recommendation informa-tion. Field notes, transcribed interviews, and artifacts were coded and analyzed with the aid of QSR Nud*ist 4. The au-thors concluded that (a) GT/LD students need to be placed in gifted programs that focus on strengths, not just difficulties, (b) many ADD symptoms may actually be characteristics of a gifted, learning-dis-abled student or a gifted underachiever, and (c) for gifted, struggling readers,

the teacher needs to find ways to make reading less painful. Some suggested ways are (a) shifting the classroom focus away from oral reading performance, (b) encouraging experiences that will help students perceive the benefits and joys of reading, (c) encouraging curiosity through finding books with information that the student is interested in, (d) read-ing along with books on tape, (e) changing the instructional focus from performance to enjoyment of reading, (f) setting learn-ing goals rather than performance goals, (g) providing patience and supportive feedback on progress while making sure to stress self-comparison rather than social comparison, (h) offering models of historically famous people whose reading problems did not limit their motivation to achieve, and (i) allowing students to read books of choice without being hampered by ability to decode—the teacher should use “scaffolding” (“zone of proximal de-velopment”).

Holliday, G. A., Koller, J. R., & Thomas, C. D. (1999). Post-high school outcomes of high IQ adults with learning disabilities. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 22, 266-281.

This study examined the long-term, post-high school outcomes of adult voca-tional rehabilitation clients who had been independently identified as having both high intellectual abilities and learning disabilities. Subjects were selected from an archival pool of approximately 3,500 individuals in a large, Midwestern state. Following an extensive developmental and educational review and comprehen-sive evaluations examining cognitive, academic achievement and personality data, licensed psychologists made the diagnosis of GT/LD. A Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Revised (WAIS-R) Full Scale, Verbal, or Performance IQ score of 120 was established as the minimum cri-terion level to identify those with high IQ. A total of 141 individuals statewide were identified as having both a specific LD diagnosis and score of at least 120. Eighty individuals successfully returned the completed questionnaire. Academically, tests to assess individual achievement included the Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Academic Achievement-Revised, the Wide Range Achievement Test-Revised, and the Peabody Individual Achievement

Test-Revised. Subjects ranged from ages 18-48. All subjects were Caucasian. Ninety-two percent of the subjects gradu-ated from high school. Subjects reported being identified for LD services in school at a later age than is typical (mean age of 14.2 years). In spite of their intellectual potential, the postsecondary educational accomplishments of these adults were found to be surprisingly limited. The mean academic grade level completed was only 12.7 years. Fifty-two percent were working in unskilled jobs, 36 % in skilled jobs, and 9 % in professional jobs. Results suggested that these adults were generally functioning at levels consistent with their learning-disability deficits rather than at levels equal to the identified intellectual strengths. The authors suggested that adults with LD, who have higher cogni-tive levels, must be able to reframe the LD experience for proper self-advocacy skills. The authors believe this requires recognition, understanding, acceptance, and a plan of action when dealing with a learning disability.

Hua, C. B., (2002). Career self-efficacy of the student who is gifted/learning disabled: A case study. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 25, 375-404.

The purpose of this study was to ex-plore, from a self-efficacy perspective, the career development pattern of a student who is gifted/learning disabled (GT/LD). Specifically, the study examined factors that enhanced or impeded the develop-ment of self-efficacy of a student who is GT/LD in his educational experiences and how his self-efficacy affected choices regarding his future. A qualitative, in-strumental case study was used. Six months before the study, an International Baccalaureate program coordinator and a gifted/talented teacher at a local high school were asked to nominate potential participants based on the following crite-ria: (a) the student was identified as gifted and talented, (b) the student was identi-fied as having a learning disability and had received special education services, and (c) the student was at the age where post-secondary goals would be considered. The participant chosen was a male, Caucasian high school junior. He was identified as having a learning disability at the age of six; he was also found to have an IQ of 135. Interviews with the mother and the G/T


teacher were obtained for triangulation purposes. A semi-structured interview technique was used. Interview data were analyzed using a grounded theory frame-work. The results of this study indicated that early recognition of potential oppor-tunities and resources for talent develop-ment and encouragement and emotional support from caring adults are critical in facilitating the development of posi-tive self-efficacy for the GT/LD student in a career choice. In addition, the study suggested that the curriculum should be flexible and provide choices that match in-terests, talents, and special needs in order to help develop strengths and compensate for disabilities. Also, the study suggested educators can help GT/LD students assess themselves realistically by providing en-couragement and helping to set attainable goals.

Igleheart, J. (1998). How should districts serve twice exceptional students? Gifted Child Today, 21(4), 38-40.

A small Texas rural school district with a high school campus of fewer than 200

students in grades 9-12 was the setting for this study. The article focused on a stu-dent named, “Rich.” Rich had been identi-fied as needing special education services in the second grade. As Rich entered high school, a new direction was taken in his services. After a team of educators decided what Rich’s main disabilities at the high school level were, three educators agreed to serve Rich in the regular classroom with the safety net of immediate return to the resource room if his teachers felt he was having difficulty. They felt that with close supervision, he might be able to be successful in the regular classroom with special emphasis on his learning difficul-ties in spelling. For the first time, Rich was allowed to attempt regular classes and was successful. His grade point aver-age for his freshman year was a solid B. With his confidence level soaring, his teachers began to see advanced abilities in mathematics. At the end of his senior year, Rich was accepted as an engineer-ing student at Texas A&M University and as a member of the corps. The results of this case study revealed a student that was allowed to succeed through a team

approach that focused on strengths, not difficulties, and that allowed for an open and flexible educational plan with support from teachers and administration.

Karnes, F., Shaunessy, E. & Bisland, A. (2004). Gifted students with disabili-ties--Are we finding them? Gifted Child Today, 27(4), 16-21. The purpose of this study was to deter-

mine the number of gifted students with disabilities identified and being served in gifted education programs in the state of Mississippi. Four categories of giftedness were set forth in the regulations for gifted programs: (a) exceptionally high degree of intelligence, (b) exceptionally high degree of demonstrated academic ability, (c) ar-tistically gifted children, and (d) creatively gifted children. A draft of the survey in-strument designed by the researchers was given to seven special education program directors for content validity. Surveys were sent to all 149 directors of public school district programs for the disabled in the state of Mississippi. Sixty percent of the school districts in Mississippi


responded to the survey. Results of this study indicated that few gifted students with disabilities in Mississippi have been identified. Only 318 students were reported as being identified as gifted students with disabilities accounting for 1.7 % of the total gifted population and .8 % of the total disabled population for the schools responding. This also reflected .1 % of the total school population of Mississippi. The authors felt that in order to address this situation, more emphasis may be needed in training regular class-room teachers and teachers of the gifted in the characteristics of gifted students with disabilities. This article also included suggestions for teachers and parents on developing the gifts of GT/LD students as well as a list of GT/LD web sites.

Little, C. (2001). A closer look at gifted children with disabilities. Gifted Child Today, 24(3), 46-54.

This article focused on the myth of global giftedness. Little stated that un-evenness tends to be the rule rather than the exception. Therefore, many gifted children with learning disabilities are excluded from gifted programming--something many of them desperately need. Self-efficacy needs to be addressed if these students are to become successful. Although learning disabled students who are not gifted gain a sense of self-efficacy through remediation, this approach does not work in the case of the gifted learning-disabled student. The best place to start is to assess students’ interests and hobbies. Referenced were Baum’s four general guidelines that can assist professionals in developing programs to meet the needs of these students: (a) focus attention on the development of the gift; (b) provide a nur-turing environment that values individual differences; (c) encourage compensation strategies; and (d) encourage awareness of individual strengths and weaknesses.

R e i s , S . , McGuire, J. M., & Neu, T. W. (2000). Compensation strategies used by high-abil-ity students with learning d i s a b i l i t i e s who succeed in col lege. Gifted Child Quarterly, 44, 123-134.

This study explored the perceptions of 12 high-abil-ity university students with learning dis-abilities and their percep-tions about their use of c o m p e n s a -tion strategies that result in successful academic per-formance. The students were

identified as having a well-above-aver-age or superior IQ in either elementary or secondary school (range 125-158), but had generally not been identified as gifted because of lower achievement due to their learning disability. Data for the study were collected using three methods: (a) document review of extensive records and testing information, (b) written responses to an open-ended questionnaire, and (c) in-depth interviews with each participant and one of his or her parents. The au-thors reported a variety of compensation strategies that they learned primarily in the university setting (e.g., note taking, test-taking preparation, time manage-ment, monitoring assignments, using organizers, library skills, written expres-sion, reading, mathematical processing, memory strategies, work processing, use of computers, books on tape). In addition, the students focused on developing their talents instead of focusing on their defi-cits and selected courses and later majors in which their considerable potential for talent could develop. The authors con-clude, “pull-out programs that focus on remediation may be detrimental for this population” (p. 133).

Shevitz, B., Weinfield, R., Jeweler, S., & Barnes-Robinson, L. (2003). Mentoring empowers gifted/learning-disabled stu-dents to soar! Roeper Review, 26, 37-40.

The Wings Mentor Program in Maryland’s Montgomery County Public Schools is founded on four basic prin-ciples: (a) focus on strengths, (b) build in success, (c) enhance self-esteem, and (d) plant a seed. The program was established to provide additional support to gifted learning-disabled students who were not succeeding in the classroom in grades K-12. A mentor is matched to a student and they meet during the school day for an hour each week for eight weeks to explore selected interests. The mentors are hired as part-time employees by the school, at-tend training sessions on the characteris-tics of gifted learning-disabled students, and partner with the classroom teacher. The culminating project at the end of the semester is a classroom presentation by the student. The experience allows the “at-risk” students to be actively engaged in their own learning and realize their creative and intellectual potential.

�0 Winter 2007 • Tempo • Texas Association for the Gifted and Talented

Thrailkill, C. (1998). Patrick’s story. Gifted Child Today, 21(3), 24-25.

This article is about a gifted, learning disabled child as told by his mother. In his early years, Patrick was unusually inquisi-tive and had an interest in building and drawing pictures. His physical develop-ment was above average, and he displayed good balance and well-developed fine motor skills. However, he showed no interest in learning to read, which had been evident in his brother. In school, he seemed unable to master letter sounds and putting them together for words. Socially he adjusted well, but he contin-ued to experience trouble with pre-read-ing and reading skills. After continuing to experience trouble, he was tested at the end of the second grade. Not only was he diagnosed with a learning disability; he was also identified as gifted by the state of Florida’s guidelines. The remainder of the article followed Patrick on his jour-ney through school including some suc-cesses and many struggles. In the end, his mother wrote that she finally realized that Patrick was not a handicapped child, but a child who happened to learn best in a fashion that was far from the norm of school. However, after pursuing a de-gree in industrial design, he was hired by a company that paid him a considerable

sum of money to daydream, brainstorm, and tinker to his heart’s content. He was finally successful in his own element. The article concluded with implications for teachers and tips for parents.

Weinfield, R., Barnes-Robinson, L., Jeweler, S., & Shevitz, B. (2002). Academic pro-grams for gifted and talented/learning disabled students. Roeper Review, 24, 226-333.

In the Montgomery County Public Schools of Maryland educators have developed a dynamic, comprehensive program for the gifted learning-disabled student population in grades 2-12. Those identified with severe learning disabilities are placed in self-contained classrooms while those with milder disabilities receive gifted services in their general education classes. Students with severe learning disabilities who demonstrate academic deficits that cannot be overcome through accommodations in the home school re-ceive appropriate gifted education at the gifted learning disabled Center. A men-torship program is available and 60-70 students participate each year. A full-time program coordinator oversees all of the instructional and program opportunities. The authors described the best practices that have been successful in this program

in terms of school climate, instructional skills and strategies, and content area instruction. Overall suggestions for edu-cating gifted learning disabled students include (a) gifted and talented instruc-tion in the student’s area of strength, (b) opportunities for the instruction of skills and strategies in academic areas which are affected by the student’s disability, (c) a differentiated program including individualized instructional adaptations and accommodations, and (d) compre-hensive case management to coordinate all aspects of the student’s individual educational plan.

References

Baum, S. (1990). The gifted learning dis-abled: A paradox for teachers. Preventing School Failure, 34, 11-14.

Winter 2007 • Tempo • Texas Association for the Gifted and Talented

Tempo welcomes manuscripts from educators, parents, and other advocates of gifted education. Tempo is a juried publication, and manuscripts are evaluated by members of the editorial board and/or other reviewers.

Please keep in mind the following when submitting manuscripts:

1. Manuscripts should be 5-12 pages on a topic related to gifted education.

2. References should follow the APA style outlined in the fifth edition of the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association.

3. Submit an electronic copy, typed, 12 pt. font, double-spaced manuscript. Use a 1 ½ “ margin on all sides.

4. In addition to title page, a cover page must be attached that includes the author’s name, title, school or program affiliation, home and work address, email address, phone numbers, and fax number.

5. Place tables, figures, illustrations, and photographs on separate pages. Each should have a title.

6. Author accepted manuscripts must transfer copyright to Tempo, which holds copyright to all articles and reviews.

Guidelines for Article submissionsPlease send manuscripts and inquiries to:

Dr. Jennifer L. Jolly, Tempo [email protected]

Upcoming Issues:

Spring 2007Deadline: March 1

Summer 2007Deadline: June 1

�1

�2 Winter 2007 • Tempo • Texas Association for the Gifted and Talented

Book reviews

Best Practices in Gifted Education (ISBN 1-59363-210-X) provides concise, up-to-date, research-based advice to educators, administrators, and parents of gifted and tal-ented youth. The 29 practices included in this volume are the result of an extensive exami-nation of educational research on what works with talented youth. The interest in culturally diverse and low-income learners, the means to identify talents, and the need for curriculum that appropriately challenges high-ability youth constitute just a few of the 29 practices. Each practice is organized into a chapter containing two sections: What We Know and What We Can Do. The first section briefly describes the practice and summarizes the research. The second section suggests what course of action a parent, teacher, or administrator might take at home, in the class-room, or at school. For more information contact: Prufrock Press, www.prufrock.com

This third edition of the widely popular Talented Children and Adults: Their Development and Education (ISBN 978-1-59363-212-X) has been revised to include the most up-to-date information on talent development. Written by a nationally recognized au-thor in the field of gifted education, this textbook ex-plores the factors that encourage talent development from birth through adulthood, with specific chapters focusing on children from birth to age 2, elementary and middle school students, high school and college students, and adults. Talented Children and Adults includes information for identifying talented stu-dents, developing programs for these students, iden-tifying creativity, and creating appropriate curricula. The book also addresses counseling and guidance for talented students, as well as underserved populations. Each chapter begins with a vignette, and case studies from students and educators in the field are included at the end of each chapter. For more information con-tact: Prufrock Press, www.prufrock.com

Grammar Zones (Grades 3-6) (ISBN 1-57336-334-0) allows students to work in groups on the four basic parts of speech. By advancing through activities such as building word banks, creating billboards, writing postcards, and completing worksheets, students advance on a game map. On their journey they encounter places such as Noun Town, Adjective Avenue, Verb Valley, and Adverb Bluff. The group that reaches the summit first depends on their grammar skills, effort, luck, and fate cards.

As a class, students name their city and choose what business will be built in Math Merchants (Grades 3-6) (ISBN 1057336-411-8). Through role-play students become buyers and sellers using number skills and mathematical reasoning. They apply for jobs in stores and offices, then partners to design storefronts and store catalogs and determine prices and discounts. In each role, students are asked to use money in real-life situations.

Genre Journeys 2 (Grades 6-8) (ISBN 157336-410-X), an inde-pendent reading program, can be used with individual students, small groups, or the entire class. Students develop customized “itineraries” by choosing a book in one of four genres and selecting from more than 50 related language arts activities. Travel miles are accumulated through each activity to earn a “stamp” for the stu-dent passport. Genre Journey 2 explores Mystery, Science Fiction, Historical Fiction, and Drama.

Grammar Zones, Math Merchants, and Genre Journeys 2 include interactive activities for small or whole groups and those students working independently. Each package includes a teacher guide and student materials. For more information contact www.teach-erinteract.com

��

RETURN COMPLETED FORM AND PAYMENT TO:(512) 499-8264 FAX

Texas Association for the Gifted and Talented, P O Box 1918, San Antonio, TX 78297

Individual: • Tempo - Quarterly Journal NEW! • TAGT pin with Conference attendance NEW! • TAGT Electronic Newsletter • Members-Only Website Access • Periodic E-mail updates • Reduced fees at Conferences

Lifetime: • Individual Membership Benefi ts for life

School / District Membership for 10 or 22 • Individual Membership Benefi ts PLUS: • 5% group discount on the Annual Conference Registration NEW! • Each designated member will receive a copy of Tempo & Insights NEW! • Electronic Overview Presentation on TAGT Scholarships and Awards (school to designate the recipients of these benefi ts on behalf of the institution)

Business / Higher Education Membership: • TAGT Electronic Newsletter • Members-Only Website Access • Periodic E-mail updates • Reduced fees at all Conferences • Tempo - Quarterly Journal • Web Link • 5% Discount on single business ads

Method of Payment: Credit Card (see below) Check #

VISA MASTERCARD DISCOVER AMEX

Card Number Exp Date

Card Holder Name

Address

City, State, Zip

Signature

VISA MASTERCARD DISCOVER AMEXVISA MASTERCARD DISCOVER AMEXVISA MASTERCARD DISCOVER AMEX

Credit Card Check #

MEMBERSHIP CATEGORIES Individual $49 Lifetime $500 School / District for 10 $500 School / District for 22 $1,000 Business / Higher Education $150

DIVISION DUES G/T Coordinators $10 Research & Development $10 Dual-Language $10

PARENT AFFILIATE GROUP*

*Please fi ll out the separate Parent Affi liate Group Membership Form

Parent Affi liate Group $59

TAGT SCHOLARSHIP FUNDInvest in the future of Texas gifted youth

Friend up to $100 Patron $101 to $500 Advocate $501 to $1,000 Benefactor $1,001 or more

Donation Amount $ ____________

TOTAL DUE $

School / District for 22 School / District for 10 Lifetime

Business / Higher Education

Individual

Dual-Language Research & Development G/T Coordinators

Parent Affi liate Group

Please Print:

Name Gender M F

Mailing Address

City State Zip Code

Email

Phone (H) Phone (W) Fax

Parent Affi liate Group member? Yes No If yes, group name:

Occupation (check all that apply): Teacher Administrator Business Member Counselor Parent School Board Member

Business / School District ESC Region

School Subject Area / Grade

Job TitleEthnicity: Caucasian African American Hispanic / Latino American Indian Asian Pacifi c Islander Other

Teacher Administrator Business Member Counselor Parent School Board MemberTeacher Administrator Business Member Counselor Parent School Board MemberTeacher Administrator Business Member Counselor Parent School Board MemberTeacher Administrator Business Member Counselor Parent School Board Member

Caucasian African American Hispanic / Latino American Indian Asian Pacifi c Islander Other Caucasian African American Hispanic / Latino American Indian Asian Pacifi c Islander Other Caucasian African American Hispanic / Latino American Indian Asian Pacifi c Islander Other Caucasian African American Hispanic / Latino American Indian Asian Pacifi c Islander Other Caucasian African American Hispanic / Latino American Indian Asian Pacifi c Islander Other Caucasian African American Hispanic / Latino American Indian Asian Pacifi c Islander Other Caucasian African American Hispanic / Latino American Indian Asian Pacifi c Islander Other

Parent Affi liate Group member? Yes

Gender M F Gender M F

Teacher Administrator Business Member Counselor Parent School Board Member

Texas Association for the Gifted and Talented

Membership ApplicationEffective July 1, 2006

Texas Association for the Gifted and Talented1524 S. IH 35, Suite 205Austin, Texas 78704

Non Profit Org.U.S. Postage

PAIDAustin, Texas

Permit No. 941

winter 2007 • volume xxvii, issue 1 tempo · 2007. 2. 20. · winter 2007 • tempo • texas...

Documents