1. “Bridging the Excellence Gap: Bringing Balance and Equity to GT Programming"
Dr. Charity Fleming Smith
Former Arkansas Assistant Education Commissioner, and Principal Education Consultant, Fetterman and Associates International
CCSSO: National Conference on Student Assessment
Philadelphia , Pennsylvania

2. Session Purpose
In this session, we will discuss the current state of GT screening and identification, considerations for integrating growth into the identification process, and insights from the state perspective.

3. Lessons for Policymakers
Create Greater Policymaker Awareness by Reviewing the G/T Research.

4. What Happens To A Dream Deferred?
Policies and practices must improve!
There is resounding recognition of the disproportionality in programs for gifted, talented and high achieving youth, and a clear want to improve on policies and practices.
There is consensus that students of all socioeconomic backgrounds, races, ethnicities, and differing home languages should have opportunities to be recognized as high achieving and that these students are involved in the most appropriate curriculum and instruction to reach their full potential.

5. Are Policymakers Fully Aware of GT Crisis Among the Nation’s Poor?
The needs of GT students have often gone un-noticed.
Unfortunately many policymakers are unaware, but the battle cry for increased participation in high quality GT programs has heightened.
The underdeveloped talent among the nation’s gifted is an untapped natural resource!
However, many GT advocates believe that increased policymaker awareness will help up tackle GT participation issues.

6. Participation: What Do Researchers Say?
Gaps in performance has taken center stage in the educational arena.
Gaps in the achievement between poor and more advantaged children and minority and nonminority students of all ages continue to be the most central problem in the field of education. Limited participation in GT programs will widen the gap.
Most of our poor minority children find themselves in schools that lack a rigorous curriculum; are less well-equipped in terms of educational resources such as libraries, textbooks, and technology; and often employ less experienced or less qualified teachers and principals (Barton, 2003).
Identification of Low-Income Gifted Learners: A Review of Recent Research
Amongtop performers at every level of the K-16 educational system in the United States, there is a marked underrepresentation of students who are African American, Native American, and Latino (Ford & Whiting, 2008; Miller, 2004; Olszewski-Kubilius & Clarenbach, 2012). As in society in general, a disproportionate number of these students are from low-income families (Miller, 2004; Plucker, Burroughs, & Song, 2010). By far, the ost commonly identified risk factors for students with high ability not participating in gifted programs are socioeconomic status and cultural diversityBarlow & Dunbar, 2010; Bernal, 2002; de Wet & Gubbins, 2011; Donovan & Cross, 2002; Ford, 1995, 2011; Lee, Matthews, & Olszewski-Kubilius, 2008; McIntosh, 1995; Worrell, 2007; Wyner, Bridgeland, & DiIulio, 2007; Yoon & Gentry, 2009). In spite of this, based on most traditional measures of academic ability, the number of low-income high-ability students in the United States is estimated to exceed the individual populations of 21 states (Wyner et al., 2007).

7. Participation: What Do Researchers Say?
Poor students are often unable to participate in GT programs despite emergent abilities.
“Even if students are in schools with gifted programs, poor minority children are far less likely to be referred by teachers for possible participation in the gifted program, regardless of the ethnicity or race of the person doing the referring.”
The lack of a truly multicultural classroom is believed to affect the achievement of gifted minority children, affecting students’ sense of belonging and validation as scholars (Ford, Howard, Harris, & Tyson, 2000).
Identification of Low-Income Gifted Learners: A Review of Recent Research
Amongtop performers at every level of the K-16 educational system in the United States, there is a marked underrepresentation of students who are African American, Native American, and Latino (Ford & Whiting, 2008; Miller, 2004; Olszewski-Kubilius & Clarenbach, 2012). As in society in general, a disproportionate number of these students are from low-income families (Miller, 2004; Plucker, Burroughs, & Song, 2010). By far, the ost commonly identified risk factors for students with high ability not participating in gifted programs are socioeconomic status and cultural diversityBarlow & Dunbar, 2010; Bernal, 2002; de Wet & Gubbins, 2011; Donovan & Cross, 2002; Ford, 1995, 2011; Lee, Matthews, & Olszewski-Kubilius, 2008; McIntosh, 1995; Worrell, 2007; Wyner, Bridgeland, & DiIulio, 2007; Yoon & Gentry, 2009). In spite of this, based on most traditional measures of academic ability, the number of low-income high-ability students in the United States is estimated to exceed the individual populations of 21 states (Wyner et al., 2007).

8. Lessons for Policymakers
Create and/ or Improve GT Protocols and Policies.

9. What Is the Current State Of G/T Policies?
A Federal GT policy for GT services does not exist.
The federal government does not provide guidance or have requirements for gifted services, therefore, students encounter a range of services from state to state and even district to district.
NAGC and the Council of State Directors of Programs for the Gifted (CSDPG) conduct a biennial survey of how states regulate and support programs for advanced students  called State of the States in Gifted Education.
Gifted identification is mandated in only 32 states, and funded in fewer. Most teachers receive only minimal instruction on the identification and management of gifted children.

10. How Can Policymakers Improve Protocols for Gifted and Talented Identification?
Policymakers must become aware of the lack of services and policies:
NCLB and IDEA have no requirements to offer services to gifted students.
Some Departments of Education have no accountability to measure growth in gifted and talented students.
Factors influencing determination of “giftedness” Socio-economic factors often lead to underreporting of some gifted. Gender issues- Female students less likely to be identified

11. What Are the Identification Protocols?
Protocols for identifying GT students vary from state to state and school to school.
Protocols for identification for participation often are not structured to consider the impact of cultural or family income differences on a student’s performance (VanTassel-Baska et al., 2002; Wyner et al., 2007).
Because there is no federal mandate for gifted education in the United States, the definitions of who should be considered for participation in gifted education programs are as varied as the states from which they emanate.

12. What Is the Balance Between Underrepresentation and Identification?
Low income GT students are underrepresented and their talent is often wasted and unrealized.-
Among top performers at every level of the K-16 educational system in the United States, there is a marked underrepresentation of students who are African American, Native American, and Latino (Ford & Whiting, 2008; Miller, 2004; Olszewski-Kubilius & Clarenbach, 2012). As in society in general, a disproportionate number of these students are from low-income families (Miller, 2004; Plucker, Burroughs, & Song, 2010).

13. What Role Do Teachers Play?
The practice of teacher referral to GT programs must be overhauled.
In his analysis of state-wide data in Georgia, McBee (2006) evaluated the “accuracy” of referral methods by comparing the referral method, including teacher nominations, to the number of students formally identified gifted.
Many fewer students who received Free and Reduced Lunch (FRL) were formally identified gifted (2.9% ).

14. Will We Improve Identification Through Professional Development of Policymakers?
In many districts, teachers have not received formal training on the identification of GT students. We can:
Improve all students’ achievement through the use of high-end curricula developed for high-ability, gifted and talented students;
identify underrepresented students through the use of these rigorous curricula; and
identify successful professional development activities that led to changes in classroom practice in support of gifted students.

15. Lessons for Policymakers
Use Growth and Status to Measure Ability.

16. Can We Balance the Needs of All Learners?
Growth could be used as one metric to measure performance of gifted students.
Unless policymakers address the needs of all learners, including the gifted, it will be difficult to move the distribution of academic perform across states, within states, districts, universities, schools, or classrooms.
We should consider moving away nationally from growth to proficiency, and moving to growth to excellence.
Far too often, we focus on improving the performance of underachievers. We need to balance the focus on all learners.

17. Can We Balance High Potential/ High Opportunity?
Many students from poverty demonstrate limited opportunity to learn rather than limited potential.
Lohman, 2006). Lohman (2006) argued that testing reflects previous opportunities to learn and that high potential—not just high accomplishment—is an important consideration when identifying students from groups typically underrepresented in gifted education programs such as students from poverty.

18. What Are Ways for Identifying GT So That Intelligence Matters Regardless of Income?
Policymakers must used the best resources to move from inspiration and information to effective identification.
Gagné's Differentiated Model of Giftedness & Talent Idea of HIDDEN Gifts! High Potential High Performance
GARDNER'S Theory of MULTIPLE Intelligences Linguistic Logical-Mathmatical Musical Spatial Bodily-Kinesthetic Interpersonal Intrapersonal Naturalist
RENZULLI's 3 Ring Model Gifted
Failing our Brightest Kids- The Excellence Gap- Fordham Institute

19. Lessons for Policymakers
Encourage Improvement In Addressing Student Needs.

20. Can We Better Address the Needs of the G/T Learners
National Association for Gifted Children and the Council of State Directors of Programs for the Gifted recommends:
Increased data collection, strong state policies, increased teacher training, and other critical resources.
Create New Support Systems
Investigate the development of academic fitness centers so that students can exercise their intellect, attitude, and creativity.

21. Do Gifted Students Need special Programs?
Myth:
Gifted students do not need help. If they are really gifted, they can manage on their own.
The social and emotional development of the gifted student is at the same level as his/her intellectual development.
The primary value of a gifted student lies in his/her brain power. The capacity to demonstrate growth is largely unchecked!

22. Vision

23. Front Loading Investigate successful programs and practices.
Briggs, Reis, and Sullivan (2008) conducted an analysis of methods to increase successful participation in gifted education programs of students who are typically underrepresented. These include:
(a) modifying identification procedures;
(b) creating additional program support systems, s (front-loading);
(c) selecting curriculum/instructional designs that enable students to succeed;
(d) building parent/home connections; and
(e) using culturally sensitive program evaluation. Professional development that increased awareness of the problems.

24. Voice

25. Develop Talent: Smart Is Not Something That You Are- Smart Is Something You Can Get!
Can we increase the opportunity to learn!
Researchers suggest, that the best programs for academically gifted children see their mission as developing talent— not merely discovering it. Programs might better communicate this goal to the public if they emphasized more their role in developing academic excellence and spoke less about giftedness.
Anyone can aspire to excellence. Giftedness, however, has connotations of fixedness that are rightly resented by those who score lower on tests that measure the abilities and achievements used to define the construct. (Lohman, 2006, p. 11)

26. Veracity

27. Will We Investigate GT Voices from the Field
Will We Investigate GT Voices from the Field? Diverse Learners Equal Talents, Unequal Opportunities
Diverse Learners Equal Talents, Unequal Opportunities
This report from the Jack Kent Cooke Foundation looks at state policy and student achievement to evaluate states on their support of high-achieving, low-income students –
See more at:

28. Investigate the Impact of Race and SES
Investigation of race and SES on GT identification must be addresses by policymakers in each state.
(McBee, 2010). Race has an effect over and above SES in reducing the accuracy of nominations.
Income is a factor, but race has a greater effect in identification. “High SES White students are 3.8 times more likely to be identified than low SES White students, but high SES Black students are 5.0 times more likely to be identified than low SES Black students” (McBee, 2010, p. 295).

29. Lessons From the Field: Unlocking Emergent Talent:
We can unlock emergent talent.
Unlocking Emergent Talent: Supporting High Achievement of Low-Income, High-Ability Students  Recommendations from an NAGC summit for practice, policy, and research for low income, high-ability children.
Olszewski-Kubilius and Clarenbach (2012) suggested that leaders who develop programs should consider:
Gifted students from low-income backgrounds, need different and distinct approaches to identification and programming are sometimes necessary to fully develop their talents and abilities. (p. 22)

30. “Turning Childhood Dreams into Reality: Address the Needs of all Gifted Children!