TAG Update Fall 2013 Final

8/13/2019 TAG Update Fall 2013 Final

1/19

THE UPDATE FALL, 2013

PAGE 1

E ! ective Program Models

for Gi " ed Students # om Underserved Populations

Edited by

Cheryll Adams and Kimberley Chandler

The following text is from the introduction of E ! ective Program Practices for Underserved Gi " ed Students, A CETAG Educational Resource. It is used with permission from Prufrock Press, Inc.

Introduction

This publication provides coordinators, teachers,administrators, parents, and other interested parties with informationabout e " ective program models for underserved gifted students. Inthis book, we identify eight successful programs that have beendesigned to use with low #income, high #ability students. Each chapterincludes an introduction and brief overview of the model, howstudents are identied for the program, which talents are valued, the goals of the project, a description of the model, di $ cult issues andhow they are addressed, important contributions of the program,research ndings, how the program is sustained, and contactinformation.


2/19


PAGE 2

Continued $ om page 1

Two entries focus specically on primary #aged students: Young Scholars and Project Clarion.Young Scholars is a model for nding and nurturing potential in diverse populations of young students; itstarted in one large district and has been replicated in various sites across the country. Project Clarion

was a Javits demonstration project that focused on developing and nurturing science talent in primarystudents. An interesting connection is that the curriculum units developed in Project Clarion arefrequently used as a component of some Young Scholars programs.

Project Athena and Project M 3 % Mentoring Mathematical Minds & were Javits demonstrationprojects that were developed to nurture students in the upper elementary grades. Project Athena was alanguage arts program that used curriculum originally designed specically for gifted students in aheterogeneous, Title I setting in which there were often no identied students. Project productsincluded novel study guides to give teachers additional options and a program for sca " olding readingcomprehension. Project M 3 was also a program that generated curriculum products, but with anemphasis on identifying and nurturing math talent.

The chapters on Project Nexus, the Next Generation Venture Fund, Project EXCITE, and the TEAK Fellowship describe programs that provide support in various ways and in di " ering degrees forsecondary students. Although the Project Nexus program and Project EXCITE were funded throughpublic monies, the Next Generation Venture Fund and the TEAK fellowship were dependent on privateand corporate sponsorships.

By including models and programs that span the grade levels, focus on di " erent content areas,and represent a variety of funding schemes, it is hoped that the reader will be able to understand thediverse options that have been implemented e " ectively in nding and nurturing students fromunderrepresented populations. Although it may not be possible to replicate a given program exactly inones own district, the detailed description and the inclusion of contact information should give anadministrator a starting point for developing a program tailored to his or her context.


3/19


PAGE 3

From the President...!"#$ &'( )"*$+ ,*-. /" )"01234 ($..35 6.3/#,785 /" ,"3+#,/ 9#:23.:: ;"$ "#$"$4*32$"J2+.+ /C. ">>"$/#32/8 /" ,$.*/. * +""+,*:/: /C*/ C*J. 9..3 *++.+ /" /C. &'( 0.9:2/. *: * -.-9.$ 9.3.R2/A &0" "; /C.>"+,*:/: C*J. 9..3 >1*,.+ "3 /C. -*23 0.9:2/. 0C21. "/C.$: *$. *J*21*91. /" &'(-.-9.$: "3 /C. 0.9:2/.A

HC21+$.3 *3+ 8"#34 >.">1. 02/C 42;/: 3..+ 8"#$ *+J",*,8A &C.8 3..+ ;"$ 8"# /" :>.*7 "#/"3 9.C*1; "; 1*0: *3+ >"12,2.: /C*/ *++$.:: /C.2$ 3..+:5 3..+: $.1*/.+ /" /C.2$ :/$.34/C:

$*/C.$ /C*3 +.R2,2.3,2.:A ).,*#:. /C. 3..+: "; 42;/.+ ,C21+$.3 ,"-. ;$"- /C.2$ :/$.34/C:5/C.8 -*8 3"/ 1""7 G3..+85K :" 8"#$ *+J",*,8 0211 9. J.$8 2->"$/*3/ /" $.,.2J234*>>$">$2*/. :.$J2,.:A

T1*3 /" ,"-. /" /C. &'( =8->":2#- */ /C. HUH H"3;.$.3,. 23 TC21*+.1>C2* "3 '>$21 VA &C./C.-. 0211 9. /2-.18 W &C. H"--"3 H"$. =/*3+*$+: *3+ (2;/.+ HC21+$.3A &C.3 >1*3 /":/*8 ;"$ /C. ,"3;.$.3,. *: /C.$. 0211 9. -*38 23/.$.:/234 :.::2"3:A

X./S: 0"$7 /"4./C.$ +#$234 /C. YZD[OYZD\ :,C""1 8.*$ /" :/$.34/C.3 &'( *: *3"$4*32


4/19


PAGE 4

In Memoryof

Laurence (Larry) Joseph Coleman(1941-2013)


5/19


PAGE 5

By Susan K. Johnsen

I have been most fortunate to have grown up in a time when I coulddo things that I value.

Larry Coleman!2005, p. 131

"

The secret of gi " ed education is that you put teachers who want to be therewith kids who want to be there and then something magical happens.

Larry Coleman ! in Cross, 2005 &

On September 5, 2013, we lost one of our dear friends and past TAG Board member, Laurence % Larry & Coleman. He died unexpectedly of an apparent sudden cardiac arrest while hiking with his wife, Betty, atPanther Creek State Park, Morristown, Tennessee.

Larry was born in Bronx, New York, December 18, 1941, to Ruth % Siebald & and Alexander Coleman. His

interest in gifted education began when he worked in a summer camp with kids who went to specializedhigh schools in New York. He received a bachelor's degree in history and a minor in education from theState University of New York at Albany in 1963, a master's degree in special education from SouthernConnecticut State University in 1965, and a doctorate in gifted and special education from Kent StateUniversity in 1975. His rst faculty position was at the University of Tennessee #Knoxville. In the 2001academic year, he moved to the University of Toledo to start an innovative program to prepare teachersof the gifted. He retired from that position in 2011 and returned to Knoxville, Tennessee. Besides his wife, Betty, he leaves behind his children, Erin % Danny & Lester, Alexandra "Ali," Angela "Angie" % Tommy & Cupp; granddaughter, Kori Cupp; brother, Gregory "Greg" % Edwina & Trentham, and their son, BenBurland; brother and sister #in#law, Robert "Bob" % Barbara & Daggett, and several cousins, nephews, andtheir families.

Larrys contributions as a scholar and a teacher were numerous, and he set many standards for the eldof gifted education. He was a highly skilled and talented qualitative researcher whose studies rangedfrom how teachers think while teaching, action research and practical inquiry, educational models, how gifted children experience the stigma of being gifted, how the educational setting e " ects thedevelopment of talent in children, and how children forgo other activities to pursue their passion forlearning. He delved deeply into each of these topics because he strongly believed that you needed tostudy giftedness in the context of its development. For his book, Nurturing Talent in High School: Life in the Fast Lane, he lived in the dormitory at a special residential public high school for academically talentedand gifted adolescents to explore the e " ect of that environment on the students identity and status. He was particularly interested in inductive theories that were grounded in the behavior of gifted persons

and how these theories and paradigms shape our thinking. He frequently wrote with his former student,friend, and colleague, Tracy Cross. For his scholarly work, he received the 2000 Distinguished Scholar Award of the National Association for Gifted Children, the 2001 Best Paper of the Year for Gi " ed ChildQuarterly, and the 2004 Outstanding Leadership and Service Award from The Association for the Giftedof the Council for Exceptional Children.


6/19


7/19


8/19


9/19


PAGE 9


Growth by itself is not enough, however. Altering students' beliefs about the nature of intelligence maynot help much, if they do not also alter their general view of the purpose of schooling. "A glib way ofputting it is to say, 'Get over yourself,'" Crocker says. "If you want to stop acting in self #defeating ways,

then think about how your schoolwork will help people outside of yourself % Crocker & Park, 2012, p.39 & . In other words, telling kids that they should work for good grades because good grades are good is going to backre. Telling students that their learning new skills will help their families might help createneed for e " ort.

One of the biggest implications is to reframe strengths and weaknesses because those are xedcomponents. There is only growth and strategies that achieve growth. A strength then becomes the useof an e" ective strategy, while a weakness is the search for a strategy that is yet to be tried. I dont wantto be simplistic about this ##this is not merely a motivational issue. This has to do, at its root, withneurological formations. Some children have strong connections, while others have to form them. But in

both cases, if there is no practice, there is no strengthening of the neurological bond. Im reminded ofthe quote by Thomas Edison, where he said, I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work.

So, what can teachers and parents do, instead of trying to balance two opposing forces? There are severalpossible actions:

Realize that lazy means that students are too invested in the outcome and not the results fromtheir work ##the grades, not the results of the grades. Emphasize the results from e " ort.

Emphasize the contribution # how their learning positively a " ects others. Emphasize the connection to larger goals. Again, Im reminded of a quote by Edison, Being busy

does not always mean real work. The object of a % work is production or accomplishment and to either of theends there must be forethought, system, planning, inte % igence, and honest purpose, as we % as perspiration.Seeming to do is not doing . In other words, what is the purpose of the grades beyond the gradeitself?

Teach that they can change the outcomes by trying one more way. Using the principles of UDL,there is more than one way to a solution.

Show them the changes in their outcomes. T hey have to see the growth themselves. Celebrate the learning process # mistakes are necessary. The brain must see mistakes in order to

operate more e " ectively. At the very heart of it, learning % and teaching & IS brain rewiring.

In Mindset thinking, twice#exceptional children are not blessed with giftedness nor cursed with adisability. They have unusual neurological wiring in that some pathways are very e $ cient and others are

much less e$ cient. That means that our job as teachers and as parents is to keep the emphasis on growth ## growth in all areas. This emphasis on growth brings the focus back to themselves as aourishing, singular human being, rather than a collection of mismatched labels. And according toSeligman, growth, when connected to relationships, and an emphasis on the positive, leads to happiness.
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/t/thomasaed132683.htmlhttp://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/t/thomasaed132683.htmlhttp://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/t/thomasaed132683.html


10/19


PAGE 10


References:

Crocker, J. & Park, L. E. % 2012 & . Contingencies of self # worth. In M.R. Leary & J.P. Tangney % Eds & . Handbook of self and identity. Pp. 309#326. New York: Guilford Press.

Duckworth, A. L., Quinn, P., Tsukayama, E. % 2012 & . What No Child Le " Behindlea ves behind: The roles ofIQ and self #control in predicting standardized achiev ement test scores and report card grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104& 2 ' , 439#451.

Duckworth, A. L., Weir, D., Tsukayama, E., & Kwok, D. % 2012 & . Who does well in life? Conscientiousadults excel in both objective and subjective success. Frontiers in Personality Science and Individual Di ! erences, 3& 356 ' , 1#8.Dweck, C. S. % 2006 & . Mindset: The New Psychology of Success. New York:Ballantine Books.

Dweck, C. S., Walton, G. M., & Cohen, G. L. % 2011 & . Academic tenacity. White paper prepared for theGates Foundation. Seattle, WA.

Lopez, S. J. & Louis, M.C. % 2009 & . The principles of strengths #based education. Journal of Co % ege andCharacter, 10% 4 & , ISSN % Online & 1940#1639, DOI: 10.2202/1940#1639.1041

Seligman, M. % 2012 & . Flourish. New York: Free Press

Tough, P. % 2013 & . How children succeed: Grit, curiosity, and the hidden power of character.New York: MarinerBooks.

Recent Litigation Related to Gifted Education:

McFadden v. Board of Education for I $ inois School District U % 46

McFadden v. Board of Education for Illinois School District U-46 is a recent court decision that

illustrates some of the complexities associated with identification and programming in gifted education. In one

component of the preliminary ruling in this case, the judge de termined that the way i n which an Illinois district

gifted program is organized for Latino students transitioning from Spanish to English-only settings is

discriminatory.

In considering the implications of this case, CEC-TAG would like to take a proactive approach to assist

gifted education program coordinators as they develop identification protocols and program plans. Please

contact TAG President Julia Roberts with your ideas at [email protected] . The ideas for protocols and

plans will be included on the TAG website and in a future issue of The Update .
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]://dx.doi.org/10.2202/1940-1639.1041http://dx.doi.org/10.2202/1940-1639.1041


11/19


PAGE 11

The CEC #TAG Diversity Award

Equity for Under # represented Minority Students

This national award is designed to honor the work of an outstanding teacher who responded to our national call to action. In2010, The Council for Exceptional Childrens Talented and Gifted Division provided guidance for educators andfamilies of gifted students to embrace excellence and equity. Scholars and practitioners joined forces and issued a nationalcall to action about Diversity and Developing Gifts and Talents that derived from the pervasive under-representation of specificgroups in gifted and talented programs.

With all children and youth, expressions of potential differ as a result of family background and experiences withsocial institutions. As we continue to implement traditional educational policies and practices, we ignore thesedifferences and contribute to the inequities. Our schools must reflect societys changing values about excellenceand the needs of its people. Ideas of capability are neither static nor value-free, but change as society evolves.The U.S. Census Bureau projects rapidly increasing percentages of Hispanic, Asian American, African American,

Native American, and multiracial citizens. Other changes in how Americans live their lives, such as lifestyle, familystructure, or use of technology, accompany our changing population. We must move toward ensuring equitableoutcomes for all children and youth in educational programs (CEC-TAG, 2010, p. 3).

This award honors teacher excellence and activism that exemplifies CEC-TAGs efforts to move education to a new level ofunderstanding and to a new level of innovative possibilities for service delivery for under-represented groups of giftedand talented students.

Purpose: The purpose of this national award is to recognize a teacher who has: (1) demonstrated a commitment to enhancingexcellence and equity for under-represented gifted student populations, (2) infused culturally responsive classroom or

program innovations that meet the needs of students who are under-represented in gifted and advanced programs, and (3) provided leadership to advance the NAGC/CEC teacher standards and positions on diversity.

Eligibility : Applicant must be: a full-time teacher working with gifted and talented students in a regular or advanced class;

working in a Title I school with a significant population of historically under-represented groups of students(namely African American, Hispanic, or Native/Indigenous Americans).Award : Recipient:

will receive CEC conference registration will be reimbursed travel funds to attend the CEC conference (up to $300) will receive 1 year membership benefits in CEC-TAG; is required to participate for 1 year as an at-large member of the Parent, Community, and Diversity

Committee, helping to disseminate information about CEC-TAG within recipients home-state.

To Apply: All of the following materials must be received by Friday, January 31, 2014, by 5:00 pm. in order to receivefull consideration for the award.

Cover sheet: Provide personal and school background information. Research student enrollmentinformation and enter data.

Letter of application: highlighting the three purposes of the award. Applicants should review the criteria for theaward to guide the development of his/her letter. Use Microsoft Word to generate application letter, using thefollowing parameters: not to exceed 3 single-spaced pages, Times, 12 point font, 1 inch margins.

Rsum: Not to exceed three pages. Three letters of support: One letter from an administrator who has supervised or observed your work to promote

excellence and equity for under-represented groups. One letter from a colleague or parent who has observed or benefited from your leadership around diversity and equity issues. One letter from a student who can attest tothe impact of your contribution to outcomes associated with his/her experiences.
http://livepage.apple.com/http://livepage.apple.com/


12/19


13/19


PAGE 13



Application Cover Sheet

The purpose of this national award is to recognize a teacher who has: (1) demonstrated a commitment toenhancing excellence and equity for under-represented gifted student populations, (2) infused culturallyresponsive classroom or program innovations that meet the needs of students who are under-represented ingifted and advanced programs, and (3) provided leadership to advance the NAGC/CEC teacherstandards and positions on diversity.

Deadline: Friday, January 31, 2014 by 5:00 pm . Email Application materials to Dr. Tarek [email protected]

I. Teacher Information

First Name:Last Name:

Gender (Type X): ( ) ( ) F Rac e / Ethnicity:Language/s S oken:# & Name of

Education Conf Att

Giftedrencesended:

E-mail A dress:Alternate E-mail A ddress

Cell Phone N mber:Alternate Phone N mber:

Subject/s Taught:Grade Level:

# Years Tea ching: # Yrs. in Gif ed Program

II. School Information

School District:School Name:

School Address:City:
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]


14/19


PAGE 14



III. School District and School Gifted Program Enrollment Information

Race/Ethnicity % in School District Overall % in Your Gifted ProgramAmerican Indian

Asian / Pacific IslanderBlack / African American

Hispanic / LatinoWhiteOther

Total School Enrollment: Grade Levels Served:% on Free/Reduced Lunch: Year Data Retrieved:

IV. Application Award Verification

By signing below, I verify that I: work in a Title I School and my Principal has approved my participation in the CEC Conference if I am

awarded. will participate on the Parent, Community and Diversity Committee as an at-large member to assist with

dissemination of information.

_________________________ _______________ _________________________ _______________

Teachers Signature Date Principals Signature Date

Note: Typed electronic signature is acceptable.


15/19


PAGE 15

Five Reasons Gifted Education Advocates Must Take Their Message to Congress

By Kim Hymes, CECs Director of Policy and Advocacy

While good news coming from Washington, DC seems to be rare, recent policy victories for giftededucation advocates must keep our community energized to see these proposals over the nish line. Hereare ve reasons why we need a loud, collective voice:

1. & Its been a tough few years. In 2011, Congress voted to eliminate all funding for the sole federalinvestment that supported gifted learners, the Jacob K. Javits Gifted and Talented StudentsEducation Act. Since that time, there has been no federal support for gifted education.

2. & Federal budget cuts endanger local gifted education programs. As the Federal investment

in education decreases, cash #strapped state and local governments have been spread thin. Due tosequestration, over ) 2 billion was cut from the U.S. Department of Education resulting in lessfederal support for key education programs such as Title I and special education. When localbudgets tighten, gifted education programs are in danger.

3. & Education policy can no longer ignore high #ability students. High #ability students * particularly from underrepresented backgrounds * deserve Federal education policy that recognizestheir needs. High #ability students require unique services and supports provided by knowledgeable

educators. Unfortunately, current federal education policy largely ignores high #ability students.

4. & Funding and policies for high #ability students cleared legislative hurdles but need to get to the nish line. Over the last few months, gifted education advocates were successful in gettingkey provisions from the TALENT Act % S. 512/H.R. 2338 & into the reauthorization of the Elementaryand Secondary Education Act passed by the Senate Education Committee. Under this bill, teacherscould receive gifted education training and students from underrepresented backgrounds wouldhave greater opportunities to access gifted education.

And, the Senate is proposing to resurrect the Javits program by investing ) 15 million, double thefunding it last received in 2010! But, there is still a long legislative road ahead before these bills canbecome law.


16/19


PAGE 16

,"-)&./ 0&1$&2 3-.)45.)"* 6*+.2#-.)"*+

7"2 /"#2 ,389 :"#2*5%+ ;*%)*& 3)?* H#*0 1*3 &%+&M D907H+'()-- +-&)H>%#'#%#'#Q (#'0(* ') '"# #%#&'()*+& /)0(*1% ")H#>18# 1*3 -#%#&' '"# /)0(*1% &),#( .)( 1&-- ') '"#&0((#*' +--0# )( &%+&M DL0((#*' I--0#'+)* ') /)0(*1% .)( '"# 230&1'+)* ). '"# 4+.'#3F ?"+&" ?+%%

'1M# =)0 ') '"# .)%%)?+*8 %+*M!""#%&&'()*(+,$-.+#/0,1'2&1.*&5+1(-2+#67 < E)0 ?+%% 7# 1-M#3 ') >(),+3# -)H#

+*.)(H1'+)* 17)0' =)0(-#%.< U>)* &)*O+(H1'+)* ). '"# +*.)(H1'+)* =)0( 0-#(*1H# 1*3W)( >1--?)(3 ?+%% 7# #H1+%#3

') =)0%#1-# &)*'1&' =)0( 9)&+#'=Z- G#H7#( 9#(,+- J#>'< )( &)*'1&' 9:42 3+(#&'%= 1' $'1*+"82+20+59$-.+#/0,1'2 ,
http://online.sagepub.com/cgi/recnamepwdhttp://online.sagepub.com/cgi/recnamepwdmailto:[email protected]:[email protected]://online.sagepub.com/cgi/recnamepwdhttp://online.sagepub.com/cgi/recnamepwdhttp://jeg.sagepub.com/http://jeg.sagepub.com/https://online.sagepub.com/cgi/activate/basichttps://online.sagepub.com/cgi/activate/basic


17/19


PAGE 17

Fall TAG Institute:Celebrating Diversity Among Gifted Children


18/19


PAGE 18

Fall TAG Institute:Celebrating Diversity Among Gifted Children


19/19


PAGE 19

Common Core

State Standards andGifted Education

What does the Common Core mean for gifted students?

Join experts in the field of gifted education to learn more about the Common Core StateStandards. Practical examples will be provided to illustrate how the CCSS can be

differentiated to meet the learning needs of gifted students.

April 9, 20148:30 am 3:00 pm

Philadelphia Convention Center, Philadelphia, PA

For more information email Dr. Jennifer Jolly: [email protected]

TAG Update Fall 2013 Final

Documents