Gifted and Talented children frequently are far ahead of their peers academically that they become bored with normal classroom work because they are in desperate need of intellectual stimulation on an appropriate level. GATE students need a trained teacher who understands their needs and help them succeed!.
GATE education generally focuses on problem solving and finding innovative solutions to everyday problems. By giving gifted children challenges that are reachable for them -not for the average student-, they will become motivated to seek knowledge and provide solutions, both now and in the future. Their creative thinking and problem solving can become the technological, political, and societal leaders of tomorrow.
Share your comments and personal experiences!
Showing posts with label Advocacy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Advocacy. Show all posts
Neglecting the high Achiever
Special report for Educational Leadership, Oct/08 edition, by Amy M. Azzam
What does it mean when 60 percent of teachers name struggling students as their top priority and 81 percent indicate that struggling students are the most likely to get one-on-one help from teachers-when 86 percent of those same teachers surveyed say that public schools should focus equally on all students, regardless of their backgrounds or achievements levels? According to a new report, it means that there's some confusion over the definition of equity in U.S. Schools, particularly when it comes to high-achieving students.
A recent two-part report published by the Thomas B. Fordham Institute-High Achieving Students in the Era of NCLB- looks at issues related to the best and brightest in our schools. The first study examines achievement trends for high-achieving students; the second looks at teachers' views on how schools are serving high achievers. Neither study tries to establish a casual link between No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and the performance of high-achieving students.
“Part 1: An Analysis of NAEP Data,” authored by Brookings scholar Tom Loveless, presents two major findings:
Although the United States' lowest-achieving students made rapid gains from 2000 to 2007, the performance of top students was “languid.” The bottom 10 percent of students have shown solid progress in 4th grade reading and math and 8th grade math since 2000, but the top 10 percent have minimal gains.
This pattern of stronger progress for low achievers rather that for high achievers is associated with the introduction of accountability systems in general-and not with NCLB in particular. National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) data from the 1990s show that states that adopted similar testing and accountability programs saw similar patterns. According to the report, this is because “accountability systems, like NCLB, put pressure on schools to get students over a fairly low bar” (p.10).
“Part 2: Results from a National Teacher Survey.” authored by Steve Farkas and Ann Duffet, is based on a national random sample of 900 3rd-12th grade public school teachers. Key findings include the following:
Sixty percent of teachers indicate that struggling students –not high achievers- are their top priority. Only 23 percent indicated that “academically advanced” students are a top priority.
Eighty-one percent of teachers named “struggling students” as those most likely to get one-on-one attention from teachers. Only 5 percent named “advanced students” as getting that attention.
In a forced-choice question, only 11 percent of teachers said that public schools should focus on raising the achievement of disadvantaged students who are struggling academically, whereas 86 percent said schools should focus equally on all students, regardless of their backgrounds or achievement levels. According to Chester E. Finn Jr. and Michael J. Petrilli, in their executive summary of the report, this is an “overwhelming repudiation of one of NCLB's core tenets” (p. 12). They note that one reason the achievement of top students hasn't tumbled in recent years is that “teachers' personal views have 'mediated' the federal law's intentions and incentives” (p. 12).
Forty percent of teachers said that programs for high-achieving students are “too often watered down and lacking in rigor” (p.10).
Low-income, black, and Hispanic high achievers (on the 2005 8th grades NAEP in math) were more likely that low achievers to be taught by experienced teachers.
Commenting on what they call the overall “benign neglect” of high-achieving students, Finn and Petrilli note that “if gains by low achievers are our only measure of success, America faces big challenges in the years to come” (p.12).
For a full copy of High-Achieving Students in the Era of NCLB, go to www.fordhamfoundation.org/publications/index.cfm
Smart, Black, and Losing Ground
Research has shown that black-white achievement gaps grow most noticeably during the elementary school years. But according to a recent report out of Stanford, they are growing fastest among the most able black and white students.
The report relies on data from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study: Kindergarten Cohort, a nationally representative sample of kindergartners who were assessed in reading, mathematics, and general knowledge/science skills at six time points during the years 1998-2004. The report analyzed reading and mathematics scores for approximately 7.000 elementary students. There are the two key findings:
Among students entering kindergarten with the same math and reading skills, black students fall well behind their white peers by 5th grade. The 5th grade scores of black students who enter school with average math and reading skills are one-half a standard deviation below those of their white peers and place at the 20-25th percentile of the white distribution.
The black-white gap in both math and reading appears to grow the most quickly among students who enter kindergarten with above-average math and reading skills. The gap grows twice as quickly for students who begin school with scores one standard deviation above the mean as for those who begin one standard deviation below the mean.
The study attributes this pattern to several factors. In addition to socio-economic realities that may deprive students of valuable resources, high-achieving black students may be exposed to less rigorous curriculums, attend schools with fewer resources, and have teachers who expect less of them academically than they expect of similarly high-achieving white students.
Differential Growth in the Black-White Achievement Gap During Elementary School Among Initially High- and Low- Scoring Students, by Sean F. Reardon, is available at www.stanford.edu/group/irepp/cgi-bin/joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=27&Itemid=43
What does it mean when 60 percent of teachers name struggling students as their top priority and 81 percent indicate that struggling students are the most likely to get one-on-one help from teachers-when 86 percent of those same teachers surveyed say that public schools should focus equally on all students, regardless of their backgrounds or achievements levels? According to a new report, it means that there's some confusion over the definition of equity in U.S. Schools, particularly when it comes to high-achieving students.
A recent two-part report published by the Thomas B. Fordham Institute-High Achieving Students in the Era of NCLB- looks at issues related to the best and brightest in our schools. The first study examines achievement trends for high-achieving students; the second looks at teachers' views on how schools are serving high achievers. Neither study tries to establish a casual link between No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and the performance of high-achieving students.
“Part 1: An Analysis of NAEP Data,” authored by Brookings scholar Tom Loveless, presents two major findings:
Although the United States' lowest-achieving students made rapid gains from 2000 to 2007, the performance of top students was “languid.” The bottom 10 percent of students have shown solid progress in 4th grade reading and math and 8th grade math since 2000, but the top 10 percent have minimal gains.
This pattern of stronger progress for low achievers rather that for high achievers is associated with the introduction of accountability systems in general-and not with NCLB in particular. National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) data from the 1990s show that states that adopted similar testing and accountability programs saw similar patterns. According to the report, this is because “accountability systems, like NCLB, put pressure on schools to get students over a fairly low bar” (p.10).
“Part 2: Results from a National Teacher Survey.” authored by Steve Farkas and Ann Duffet, is based on a national random sample of 900 3rd-12th grade public school teachers. Key findings include the following:
Sixty percent of teachers indicate that struggling students –not high achievers- are their top priority. Only 23 percent indicated that “academically advanced” students are a top priority.
Eighty-one percent of teachers named “struggling students” as those most likely to get one-on-one attention from teachers. Only 5 percent named “advanced students” as getting that attention.
In a forced-choice question, only 11 percent of teachers said that public schools should focus on raising the achievement of disadvantaged students who are struggling academically, whereas 86 percent said schools should focus equally on all students, regardless of their backgrounds or achievement levels. According to Chester E. Finn Jr. and Michael J. Petrilli, in their executive summary of the report, this is an “overwhelming repudiation of one of NCLB's core tenets” (p. 12). They note that one reason the achievement of top students hasn't tumbled in recent years is that “teachers' personal views have 'mediated' the federal law's intentions and incentives” (p. 12).
Forty percent of teachers said that programs for high-achieving students are “too often watered down and lacking in rigor” (p.10).
Low-income, black, and Hispanic high achievers (on the 2005 8th grades NAEP in math) were more likely that low achievers to be taught by experienced teachers.
Commenting on what they call the overall “benign neglect” of high-achieving students, Finn and Petrilli note that “if gains by low achievers are our only measure of success, America faces big challenges in the years to come” (p.12).
For a full copy of High-Achieving Students in the Era of NCLB, go to www.fordhamfoundation.org/publications/index.cfm
Smart, Black, and Losing Ground
Research has shown that black-white achievement gaps grow most noticeably during the elementary school years. But according to a recent report out of Stanford, they are growing fastest among the most able black and white students.
The report relies on data from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study: Kindergarten Cohort, a nationally representative sample of kindergartners who were assessed in reading, mathematics, and general knowledge/science skills at six time points during the years 1998-2004. The report analyzed reading and mathematics scores for approximately 7.000 elementary students. There are the two key findings:
Among students entering kindergarten with the same math and reading skills, black students fall well behind their white peers by 5th grade. The 5th grade scores of black students who enter school with average math and reading skills are one-half a standard deviation below those of their white peers and place at the 20-25th percentile of the white distribution.
The black-white gap in both math and reading appears to grow the most quickly among students who enter kindergarten with above-average math and reading skills. The gap grows twice as quickly for students who begin school with scores one standard deviation above the mean as for those who begin one standard deviation below the mean.
The study attributes this pattern to several factors. In addition to socio-economic realities that may deprive students of valuable resources, high-achieving black students may be exposed to less rigorous curriculums, attend schools with fewer resources, and have teachers who expect less of them academically than they expect of similarly high-achieving white students.
Differential Growth in the Black-White Achievement Gap During Elementary School Among Initially High- and Low- Scoring Students, by Sean F. Reardon, is available at www.stanford.edu/group/irepp/cgi-bin/joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=27&Itemid=43
Bullying and the Gifted
Victims, Perpetrators, Prevalence, and Effects
By Jean Sunde Peterson and Karen E. Ray
Purdue University
PUTTING THE RESEARCH TO USE
This study provides information to parents, school personnel, and counselors that can be useful when
advocating for the safety and well-being of gifted students. The reality that many victims apparently do not report incidents to adults at school or at home means that parents, teachers, and counselors should keep bullying in mind when attempting to ascertain why a child expresses hopelessness, appears uncomfortable in school, withdraws socially, becomes hypervigilant, or has problems eating or sleeping.
Direct questions about bullying (e.g., “Have you ever seen someone being bullied?” “Have you ever been bullied?”), including references to a wide range of bullying behaviors (e.g., “Have you ever seen a student threaten someone?”), may generate important revelations. Open-ended questions are best for generating conversation without provoking defensiveness (e.g., “Tell me about recess, the lunchroom, lining up for the bus. How do the kids behave when they’re not in the classroom?” “How do you feel when you’re on your way to school in the morning?”). Teachers, in the classroom and when supervising elsewhere, need to consider bullying broadly, watch for both overt and subtle bullying, not ignore bullying when it occurs, and not blame the victim. The fi nding that gifted children and early adolescents can also be bullies suggests that teachers should be particularly alert to nonphysical
bullying, which the study found to be associated with gifted bullies, and intervene immediately.
Proactive psychoeducational curriculum for young gifted children and others, as well, can encourage
pro-social behavior and enhance coping and general interpersonal skills.
ABSTRACT
Gifted eighth graders (N = 432) in 11 U.S. States participated in a retrospective national study that explored the prevalence and effects of being bullied and being a bully during kindergarten through grade 8. No signifi cant differences were found related to size of city, race/ethnicity, and geographical region in terms of either being bullied or being a bully. Sixtyseven percent of all participants had experienced at least 1 of 13 kinds of bullying listed on the survey, more in grade 6 than in other grades, and 11% had experienced repeated bullying. Name-calling and teasing about appearance were the most common kinds of bullying, and the latter was among several kinds of bullying signifi cantly related to emotional impact. In grade 8, 16% were bullies, and 29% had violent thoughts. At all grade levels, a larger percentage of males than females were bullied, were bullied more than 10 times, and were bullies.
CONCLUSION
The fi ndings in this study have powerful implications not only for gifted education, but also for all of K–12 education. Bullying appears to be a signifi cant problem for gifted children and early adolescents. Evidence of continued escalation of certain kinds of bullying throughout middle school in this study raises concerns that bullying might continue in high school in altered, but still insidious, forms. On the other hand, the decreasing percentages after grade 6 in name-calling and teasing about appearance, the two most common kinds of bullying, provide some hope that bullying is actually less a problem during high school than earlier (cf. Long & Pellegrini, 2003). However, the continuing increase of thinking about doing something violent tempers that optimism, as well as the reality that 41% of the gifted eighth graders in this study worried about violence in school daily. Educators and parents certainly should not assume an absence of bullying just because gifted children and adolescents do not speak of it and adults do not see it.
Perhaps the most surprising fi nding of this study is that 16% of the gifted participants were bullies in grade 8, after steadily increasing in number from kindergarten on. Gifted bullies may or may not be among the proactively aggressive bullies who are perceived to be popular. Regardless, as noted in the literature, the long-term prognosis for bullies is not positive. In terms of long-term health and well-being, it is just as important for educators and parents to intervene with gifted bullies as with gifted
victims of bullying, while recognizing that the latter are more numerous, according to this study. The noteworthy percentages of gifted victims and bullies certainly stand in stark contrast to the research literature about the low scholastic competence of both bullies and their victims (e.g., Mynard & Joseph, 1997).
The fi ndings in this study can help to raise awareness of the need for proactive, prevention-oriented, systemic school programs, especially during the late-elementary and middle-school grades. No single approach is “best practice” (Rigby, 2003), and schoolwide prevention programs must be specifi c to context. Nevertheless, preprofessional training and continuing education of teachers about bullying, collaborative efforts of educators and parents to protect children from bullies, and empirically proven curricula to alter perceptions of bullying and develop effective social skills all have the potential to make bullying abnormal and unpopular, instead of accepted as a normal part of development during the school years.
By Jean Sunde Peterson and Karen E. Ray
Purdue University
PUTTING THE RESEARCH TO USE
This study provides information to parents, school personnel, and counselors that can be useful when
advocating for the safety and well-being of gifted students. The reality that many victims apparently do not report incidents to adults at school or at home means that parents, teachers, and counselors should keep bullying in mind when attempting to ascertain why a child expresses hopelessness, appears uncomfortable in school, withdraws socially, becomes hypervigilant, or has problems eating or sleeping.
Direct questions about bullying (e.g., “Have you ever seen someone being bullied?” “Have you ever been bullied?”), including references to a wide range of bullying behaviors (e.g., “Have you ever seen a student threaten someone?”), may generate important revelations. Open-ended questions are best for generating conversation without provoking defensiveness (e.g., “Tell me about recess, the lunchroom, lining up for the bus. How do the kids behave when they’re not in the classroom?” “How do you feel when you’re on your way to school in the morning?”). Teachers, in the classroom and when supervising elsewhere, need to consider bullying broadly, watch for both overt and subtle bullying, not ignore bullying when it occurs, and not blame the victim. The fi nding that gifted children and early adolescents can also be bullies suggests that teachers should be particularly alert to nonphysical
bullying, which the study found to be associated with gifted bullies, and intervene immediately.
Proactive psychoeducational curriculum for young gifted children and others, as well, can encourage
pro-social behavior and enhance coping and general interpersonal skills.
ABSTRACT
Gifted eighth graders (N = 432) in 11 U.S. States participated in a retrospective national study that explored the prevalence and effects of being bullied and being a bully during kindergarten through grade 8. No signifi cant differences were found related to size of city, race/ethnicity, and geographical region in terms of either being bullied or being a bully. Sixtyseven percent of all participants had experienced at least 1 of 13 kinds of bullying listed on the survey, more in grade 6 than in other grades, and 11% had experienced repeated bullying. Name-calling and teasing about appearance were the most common kinds of bullying, and the latter was among several kinds of bullying signifi cantly related to emotional impact. In grade 8, 16% were bullies, and 29% had violent thoughts. At all grade levels, a larger percentage of males than females were bullied, were bullied more than 10 times, and were bullies.
CONCLUSION
The fi ndings in this study have powerful implications not only for gifted education, but also for all of K–12 education. Bullying appears to be a signifi cant problem for gifted children and early adolescents. Evidence of continued escalation of certain kinds of bullying throughout middle school in this study raises concerns that bullying might continue in high school in altered, but still insidious, forms. On the other hand, the decreasing percentages after grade 6 in name-calling and teasing about appearance, the two most common kinds of bullying, provide some hope that bullying is actually less a problem during high school than earlier (cf. Long & Pellegrini, 2003). However, the continuing increase of thinking about doing something violent tempers that optimism, as well as the reality that 41% of the gifted eighth graders in this study worried about violence in school daily. Educators and parents certainly should not assume an absence of bullying just because gifted children and adolescents do not speak of it and adults do not see it.
Perhaps the most surprising fi nding of this study is that 16% of the gifted participants were bullies in grade 8, after steadily increasing in number from kindergarten on. Gifted bullies may or may not be among the proactively aggressive bullies who are perceived to be popular. Regardless, as noted in the literature, the long-term prognosis for bullies is not positive. In terms of long-term health and well-being, it is just as important for educators and parents to intervene with gifted bullies as with gifted
victims of bullying, while recognizing that the latter are more numerous, according to this study. The noteworthy percentages of gifted victims and bullies certainly stand in stark contrast to the research literature about the low scholastic competence of both bullies and their victims (e.g., Mynard & Joseph, 1997).
The fi ndings in this study can help to raise awareness of the need for proactive, prevention-oriented, systemic school programs, especially during the late-elementary and middle-school grades. No single approach is “best practice” (Rigby, 2003), and schoolwide prevention programs must be specifi c to context. Nevertheless, preprofessional training and continuing education of teachers about bullying, collaborative efforts of educators and parents to protect children from bullies, and empirically proven curricula to alter perceptions of bullying and develop effective social skills all have the potential to make bullying abnormal and unpopular, instead of accepted as a normal part of development during the school years.
Promoting Gifted Education in your community
Despite the fact that there is a strong need to build awareness of the purposes for gifted programs and the special needs of the students these programs serve, developing solid advocacy efforts for gifted programs has been an overlooked area in the field. Public awareness could rescue gifted programs from budget cuts and benign neglect by gathering much needed support, and parents can play a vital role in communicating with the public the neccesity of maintaining appropriate educational experiences for gifted students.
* Why Gifted Programs need Community Support?.
The educational needs of the nation's gifted students continues to be a controversial topic. The general public holds many different attitudes and beliefs relating to gifted and talented students. Unfortunately, there are also a number of misconceptions about gifted students. For example:
- they need no special programming, that they will succeed anyway;
- their families are always supportive;
- they are not aware of their differentness unless they are identified as gifted;
- they enjoy being examples for other students;
- they prefer social isolation.
These common misconceptions are directly related to the lack of knowledge many have about the characteristics and educational needs of exceptional students. If we hope to build and maintain community support for gifted programs, we must increase the awareness in the community of the unique needs and qualities of gifted students as well as the benefits of gifted education programs so we can
- resolve the equity vs. excellence debate;
- dispel myths about gifted students;
- locate and maintain funding sources for gifted education;
- recruit teachers into the field of gifted education; and
- create policies and/or mandates for gifted education.
* Equity vs. Excellence
Advocates of gifted education need to address the “Equity vs. Excellence” issue. Many community members perceive gifted programs as elitist. However, it is neither fair nor reasonable to provide equal educational programming and hold equal expectations for all students, regardless of their abilities. By providing enrichment and acceleration experiences for gifted students, we are providing them with what what they need, not superfluous or unnecessary education. Helping the community see and value the educational needs of gifted and talented students will help generate support for their special programming requirements.
* Dispel Myths
It is vital that advocates dispel the myths associated with gifted students. Several of the more comom myths are:
It is undemocratic to give special attention to the gifted. This myth relates back to the equity versus excellence debate. All students should receive educational programming that is appropriate to their needs and abilities.
Gifted students will do well on their own. Gifted students need special programs to meet their complex learning needs. Without special considerations, these students may not reach their full potential.
Gifted students should strive to be part of the mainstream. Our country was founded on the premise that all individuals would develop their natural talents for the benefit of society. We should not be satisfied with mediocrity when excellence and preeminence are necessary to compete in the ever-changing world marketplace.
Gifted students in special programs will have social-emotional problems. The reverse of this myth is probably more often true. If gifted students do not receive the necessary enrichment experiences they need, social-emotional discontent may surface.
* Improve Understanding
Educating the general public about the characteristics and needs of gifted students is of utmost importance in gaining community support. Presenting clear facts and information relating to current research can help improve the public's knowledge and perceptions of gifted children and the programs that serve these unique students.
Enhancing community support for gifted education will help locate and maintain financial support for gifted programs. Funding for gifted education is limited, with additional budget cuts occurring from year to year. In order to keep gifted programs appropriate funded, it is imperative that we improve public opinion and awareness of the benefits of quality educational options for gifted students. As taxpayers, citizens play a crucial role in the appropriation of funds for various programs that affect gifted education. As stakeholders in the system, these same community members need to be made aware of the impact appropriate gifted programming can have on both students and the community as a whole.
* Recruit Teachers
Strong public support will encourage teachers to enter the field of gifted education and to sustain, perhaps increase, the number of teachers pursuing degrees and certification in gifted education. It is essential that student-teacher ratios be kept low in the gifted classroom to ensure that the needs of these exceptional students can be adequately addressed. Whenever teacher units are cut, class size grows. Continued public support can assist in recruiting and maintaining quality teachers for gifted students.
Finally, public endorsement is desperately needed to advocate for state mandates for gifted education so that appropriate educational opportunities can be assured to all gifted students. Again, citizens play a vital role in developing and establishing policies relating to education.
Continued legislative support is needed to ensure a certain future for gifted education.
* Why parents?
There are several reasons why parents make excellent ambassadors of spreading the word about gifted education. Parents are a primary, direct link between the school and the general community. This link can be nurtured and strengthened to become a vital and valuable resource. In addition, parents of gifted children have first-hand experience with the characteristics of gifted children and youth; they can influence other parents; they can make issues relevant and clear to the general public; they may have direct contacts to those in influential positions at the local, or national level; school administrators listen to parents; and parents can network to pool their skills for formulating and effective public relations plan.
While parents can be an excellent connection to the community, to be an effective advocate it is necessary to become well informed of the issues and policies relating to gifted education within the local school districts and state. Thorough research to acquire a strong knowledge base on concerns relating to gifted education will enhance accurate communication with the public. Misinformation can create more harm than good. Below are some more guidelines and activities:
- Speak out on behalf of gifted and talented children and appropriate educational programs and services;
- Be sure to stay on top of developments in your local school budget and curriculum planning decisions. It is always easier to have an impact on key decisions before they are made, rather than trying to undo unfavorable determinations;
- Advocate as individual parents and join others as well;
- Check to see if there is a local organization in your area already working on these issues;
- Check with your state gifted education organization. They may know of activists in your area.
- Offer to work with the state association on issues in the state capital and in Washington, DC;
- Consider starting your own local group to work with parents, teachers, and your local school board;
- Help make sure that gifted education programs and services in your area, as well as students activities and competitions, receive coverage in your local paper. The public gets behind local success stories!
by Kristen Stephens.
Steps to Becoming an Effective Advocate at the Local Level
- Get to know and communicate regularly with teachers interested in gifted and talented education, your school principal, your GATE program coordinator, and familiarize yourself with the program guidelines and any new laws affecting gifted education and parents of gifted students.
- Become an active participant at the school site by attending meetings, serving on the school-site council, GATE advisory commitee, or PTA.
- Form or join an advocacy group.
- Become aware of the duties and responsabilities of your local Board of Education and how they are implemented.
- Become and advocate with the local Board of education.
- Encourage other community members to become involved. Lobby your local officials.
- Use appropriate websites to stay current with local legislative information and action.
Author: California Association for the Gifted
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)