It’s been a while since I posted about gifted identification because I’ve been so wrapped up in trying to share all the things I learned from attending NAGC last November (and I’ve attended TWO MORE gifted conferences since then)! However, in my world as a Coordinator for Gifted Education, we are in gifted testing season right now, and I’m sure many other school divisions around the country are, too. So, it seems like a good time for me to get back to my gifted identification series. Please scroll back to read Posts 1 and 2 about gifted identification if you’d like to get up-to-speed.
In Blog Post #2 of the gifted identification series, I told the story of how the archaic practice of using an IQ cut-off score effectively cut me out of the gifted program in my high school. The IQ- intelligence quotient- cut-off score was infamous in gifted education virtually everywhere for most of time until probably the 1990’s when gifted researchers and educators began to rethink the reliance on timed IQ tests (fact: many school divisions all across the country STILL use IQ cut-off scores to identify gifted students). Using only an IQ score to identify students as gifted is an example of the “nature” or “entity” philosophy of giftedness- people are either born gifted, or they aren’t- and the belief that the use of one test score can tell us that. IQ scores have a rich history and do serve a purpose (mainly by giving educators an indication of students’ cognitive ability), but there are many more ways to find gifted students other than using one test score. So, why did schools ever use a cut-off score, then? Because in the past, most educators had an entity mindset about gifted. Plus, how easy was that? Give all the kids a test, and the ones who scored 130 or higher automatically got into the gifted program! What’s so wrong about that? Let’s explore that question next time. In the meantime, you can read a one-pager from Davison Institute about IQ and the Bell Curve for fun!
What experiences do you have with using an IQ cut-off score with gifted identification? Please share so we can learn!
Dr. Donna Y. Ford is the gifted research guru in the issue of underrepresentation of students of color in gifted and advanced programs. The title of her NAGC23 talk last November was quite appropriate. Though educators and experts in the field of gifted education have been working on this issue for 30+ years- hardly anything has changed! We still see fewer students from underrepresented populations in our gifted programs, our AP classes, etc. We also still see OVERrepresentation of these students in special education programs and in discipline numbers. So, what are we to do? Dr. Ford discussed her “Dirty Dozen” for us to combat. Here are my notes to the best of my ability from what I remember!
Donna Ford’s Dirty Dozen
Issues Caused by Deficit Thinking
According to Zaretta Hammond, deficit thinking means holding beliefs, attitudes, and values that define students by their weaknesses instead of their strengths. Deficit thinking leads to:
Low and negative expectations
Stereotypes
Racism
Under-referrals- All of the above contribute to teacher under-referral of students of color to gifted testing.
Issues Caused by Instrumentation
5. Bias
6. Unfair and Inequitable
7. Inadequate norming (not using Local Norms when appropriate)
8. High Stakes nature
Instruments contribute to underrepresentation in gifted programs. Dr. Ford asked the question: If a particular group keeps doing poorly on a test, why do we keep using it? She said that non-verbal measures are better to use for gifted testing since they reduce the cultural loading we see with traditional tests. She also described the assumptions that are built-in to traditional testing that make them unfair and inequitable, such as:
Homogeneity in life;
Cultural differences don’t matter;
What interesting in one culture is interesting in another culture;
Everyone had an equal opportunity to learn before taking the test;
Tests are neutral, objective tools; and
Everyone is familiar with paper-pencil tests.
Issues Caused by Policies and Procedures
9. Norms and Cut-offs
10. Approved tests
11. When students are assessed
12. New referrals
We are still utilizing policies and procedures for gifted testing that lead to underrepresentation in gifted programs. We need to audit our policies and procedures to ensure that we are using culturally fair testing, using local norms (when appropriate), getting away from cut-offs, creating better assessment windows, and opening up our referral processes so parents and community members know about them.
Dr. Ford also discussed the Office of Civil Rights’ (OCR) 80% Rule- that there was a court case that gives school divisions a 20% allowance for their gifted identification numbers. In her work, she has called this the “Equity Index.” What this means is that our identified gifted student subgroups should be within 20% of the actual subgroup student population for each school or school division. She has a terrific article describing this concept and how to figure out your Equity Index for your own school. You can download the article here:
Lastly, Dr. Ford finished up her talk by telling us that CULTURE MATTERS! Culture is learned and acquired, so we should not ignore it. Zaretta Hammond talks about how the brain is our hardware, but culture is our software. Dr. Ford also gave us the metaphor of the iceberg- Culture is like an iceberg (watch this quick YouTube video to learn more).
Along the culture lines, she shared with us Boykin’s Afro-Centric Cultural Styles Model. Through my research for this blog post, I found a really interesting short article written by Ford and Scott which does describe Boykin’s model- Under-Representation of African American Students in Gifted Education: Nine Theories and Frameworks for Information, Understanding, and Change (2010). It has been over 13 years since this article was published. After reading the article, the first thought that came to my mind was, “Wow! I agree with Dr. Ford. The more things change, the more they stay the same!”
All of the things I heard from Dr. Ford really resonated with me and made me do a mental audit of the policies and procedures we have for gifted identification in my school division. Though I feel we have done much in my division over the past few years to create a more equitable gifted identification system (for example, using the standard error of measure when considering standardized achievement test scores, considering extenuating circumstances of students, adding alternative data to supplement the gifted data, pushing in to classrooms to work with all students through Talent Development lessons, training teachers, etc.), there is always more to do. Dr. Ford’s talk gave me great momentum to make sure my school division is doing the best we can to find gifted and potentially students of all populations.
What resonates with you from my notes? What things are your school division doing to create a more equitable gifted identification system for students?
Another informative session I attended at NAGC last November was by Dr. Del Siegle and Dr. Betsy McCoach called, “Research to Guide Practice: Findings from the National Research Center That Practitioners Need to Know” (11/10/23).
Drs. Siegle and McCoach are two of the heavy hitters in the field of gifted education. They shared a plethora of research over the years from the National Research Center for gifted education that is housed at the University of Connecticut, where they both are professors. Here are some of the big take-aways based on NRC research that I had…
Underrepresented Populations in Gifted Programs, In General
What works based on the research?
Conduct universal screening AND consider achievement data [not just ability data] to address this gap in identification.
Address achievement gaps early since 3rd grade academics accounts for much of the under-identification we see.
Since NO combination of cognitive ability scores, achievement scores, and teacher ratings completely addresses the equity issues we have, we can:
Use local norms if we have homogenously populated schools (does not work with economically balanced schools)
Use “OR” instead of “AND” to expand criteria
Provide yearly training on teacher rating scales since there is so much variability between teacher ratings.
Successful English Learner Gifted Identification
What works based on the research?
Universal screening
Alternative pathways for identification
Establish a web of communication with home and school
View Professional Development as a lever for change (side note- it warmed my heart to hear them share this tip since I firmly believe it)
Screen EL students for gifted if they move quickly through the EL program.
Other Interesting Research Findings
Requiring differentiation is important since it is critical for every student (YES!).
Allow some teacher autonomy to adjust pacing guides as needed for their students.
Gifted services MUST align to gifted identification (Determine program outcomes > Design program > Design ID for the program)
Are there benefits of gifted programs beyond achievement? One study about gifted boys- they typically go to college, take more AP courses, graduate on time, and have higher high school math GPAs.
Overall, it was very interesting to me to learn about these practical, research-based suggestions for increasing diversity in our gifted programs. Does your school division use any of these tips?
My first session after the keynote was about fathers’ influence on their gifted sons by Thomas P. Hébert, Ph.D. out of the University of South Carolina. You may be thinking, “You’re a woman, and you’re definitely NOT a dad! Why on earth did you attend this session?” Well, I’m a MOM of 3 sons with a husband who IS their DAD, plus I’m an administrator over a gifted program that is roughly 50% male, so… I thought I could learn something to share with my teachers and with parents in our school division! And, wow, I certainly did!
Dr. Hébert’s research centered (and now centers, for his current study) on the over-arching question, “What factors in father-son relationships influence the talent development of high-achieving males?” He did make it clear to the audience that his body of work was qualitative using a very small sample size (10 college-age male gifted students), so we cannot generalize from his research. However, the findings from his interviews revealed some very interesting themes that I have taken as food for thought:
Father’s strong work ethic and self-sacrifice.
Father as teacher of skills and life lessons.
Father’s design and maintenance of father-son rituals (bonding time).
Father’s quiet presence on the sidelines (whether sports or academic competitions).
Father’s authenticity and comfort with himself (down-to-earth).
Father’s respect for his son’s talents, decision-making, and developing independence (actually, there was a mutual respect and admiration between father and son).
Father’s pride in his son.
Though Dr. Hébert told us not to generalize to our populations from his findings, he did give us a call to action to take note of these themes and see what we can learn from them. What I learned was that none of these themes really cost any money- they are mostly about showing up and supporting their sons (of course, sports and academic competitions could cost money and so could the bonding time if there was a trip involved with that or something). I also had several ponderings after seeing these themes: Would the same themes emerge with Moms and Sons? Dads and Daughters? Moms and Daughters? Can we really say YET if these themes influence talent development or are just CORRELATED with it? Really great food for thought!
All in all, I think it’s important for dads AND moms to be aware of these themes and consider them in how they show up for their children, whether they happen to be boys or girls. Doing these things are truly what I consider good parenting, anyway. What do you think about Dr. Hébert’s findings?
The opening Keynote Address for my very first ever National Association of Gifted Children Annual Convention was nothing short of AMAZING! The speaker was George Couros. According to the NAGC website…
George Couros is a worldwide leader in the area of innovative teaching, learning, and leading, and has a focus on innovation as a human endeavor. Most importantly, he is a proud father and husband. His belief that meaningful change happens when you first connect to people’s hearts, is modeled in his writing and speaking. In his 20-plus years in the field of education, he has worked at all levels of school, from K-12 as a teacher, technology facilitator, and school and district administrator, and is currently an Adjunct Instructor with the Graduate School of Education at the University of Pennsylvania. George is also the author of the books, The Innovator’s Mindset: Empower Learning, Unleash Talent, and Lead a Culture of Creativity, Innovate Inside the Box, and his latest release, Because of a Teacher and Because of a Teacher 2. Learn more and follow George at his website.
Here is George working the crowd before he begins! He stopped by my teacher’s and my table to meet us!
He was smart, relevant, and really funny! His PowerPoint was terrific- very streamlined with great photos. Moreover, his message was powerful. George taught us (in a nutshell) about the Innovator’s Mindset, which is the belief that abilities, intelligence, and talents are developed so that they lead to the creation of new and better ideas. There are the eight characteristics that make up this mindset. An innovator is: reflective, empathetic, a problem-finder/solver, a risk taker, networked, observant, a creator, and resilient.
He gave us different examples of what these characteristics might look like in the classroom or in our community. Here is one example I LOVED about a problem finder (watch this cool little TED Talk from a teenager, Maanasa Mendu, who noticed a problem and is actively solving it).
Here are my TOP THREE take-aways from George’s talk and what they made me ponder:
#1: “Would you want to spend the whole day learning in your own classroom?”
Wow- this question is a real eye-opener! Though I am no longer in the K-12 classroom, I am often teaching educators and administrators. So, I find this question completely still relevant to me. As a former teacher of 5th graders, I do believe that students wanted to spend their whole day learning with me (I’m basing this on the amount of times kids would ask me if they could eat lunch in my room or hang out in my room during their recess time). However, I want to keep this question close at hand as I design the next course I’m teaching to teachers this semester. I want to make sure to balance the content with meaningful processing activities, personal connections, and some easy take-aways that teachers could immediately use.
#2: “When you have a compelling reason, you can learn anything!”
I could not agree with this quote from George more. Kids (and adults) need a reason to learn. My son used to lament to me quite frequently, “My teacher said we had to learn this for the test. I don’t care about the test or this class!” Nothing strikes up de-motivation in a student faster than telling them they must learn it FOR THE TEST!
Having a reason to learn reminds me of Marzano and Pickering’s 4 emblematic questions about student engagement from their book, The Highly Engaged Classroom (as a side note, I did a whole-year Professional Development series on this book with two different school staffs…):
How do I feel?
Am I interested?
Is this important?
Can I do this?
The questions “Am I interested?” and “Is this important?” directly relate to giving students a reason to learn something. We know there are things that we are obligated to teach students according to state or federal mandates. However, if we can frame our content in a way that connects somehow to what interests our students and/or what is important to our students, then students will learn better and will achieve better outcomes. There are many FREE reproducible resources at Marzano’s website.
#3: “Change is an opportunity to do something amazing.”
Heraclitus said, “There is nothing permanent except change.” How many people do you know who hate change, who actively loathe it and resist it, especially change in education? A lot, right? We as educators must adopt a different mindset about change. If we take George’s words and think of change as an OPPORTUNITY to do new and cool things and not as a burden, then we will be much happier teachers and our students will be much more engaged learners.
Let me leave you with my FINAL THOUGHT on the Innovator’s Mindset: teachers have so much power to help nurture our students to do amazing things! We have the power to develop all of our students’ abilities, intelligence, and talents. We can leverage change as an opportunity to try something new with our students and give them the chance to really show us what they know and are able to do. We can find the innovator’s characteristics inside of ourselves to impact our students. Have fun innovating!
If you want more content about and by George, you can connect with him through his social media accounts:
Twitter and Instagram: @gcouros
Facebook: facebook.com/georgecourosauthor
YouTube: @georgecourosim
He also has written several books, one of which I bought and he signed (The Innovator’s Mindset)!
Wow! It’s taken me two weeks, but I am finally settled down from the totally HYPE National Association for Gifted Children’s Annual Convention that was held November 9th-12th in Orlando, Florida. I must confess that though I have been in gifted education for 28 years, I HAVE NEVER BEEN TO AN NAGC ANNUAL CONVENTION! If you have never gone, I highly recommend you try to attend in Seattle next year! Trust me- you’ll love it and learn so much!
From the opening keynote (George Couros talking about “The Innovator’s Mindset”) to the closing keynote (Donovan Taylor Hall speaking about “The Learner Inside: Creating Emotional Safety in Learning”), the learning for me never stopped. I felt like I was among celebrities all weekend, which actually, I was, if you think about it. I got to listen to the giants in the field of gifted education talk about the things they wrote WHOLE TEXTBOOKS ABOUT way back when I was getting my Master’s degree with an endorsement in gifted education in the early 1990’s. I got to hear Dr. Joyce VanTassel-Baska (my former professor at The College of William and Mary, by the way), Dr. Del Siegle, Dr. Betsy McCoach, Dr. Donna Y. Ford, Dr. Ann Robinson, Dr. Nicholas Colangelo, and Dr. Rena Subotnik. I also learned from many other educators during the four days of the convention, including Dr. Tamra Stambaugh and Dr. Catherine Little, fellow W&M alumnae!
In order to best process my learning and share it with teachers and coordinators, I’ll be writing a series of blogs from the sessions I attended at NAGC (16 total, including the presentation I gave and the poster I presented). I can’t wait to share what I’ve learned with you! Please leave me a note in the comments if you’ve ever attended an NAGC Annual Convention. If so, when and where did you attend and what is one big take-away you had from it to this day? I hope to learn about some great take-aways from you! ~Ann
Let’s take a little trip down memory lane, early winter of 1986. It was time to register for my classes for senior year. I had looked through the list of class offerings and chose a “Mentorship in Law” class for one of my electives. This class would be perfect for me since I thought I wanted to be a lawyer (spoiler alert- I didn’t become a lawyer). Within seconds of handing my Guidance Counselor my course request list, she informed me that only gifted students were allowed to take the mentorship class. I, as a matter of fact, was not a gifted student. So, I told her I wanted to take that class, and then referred myself for gifted testing. She gave me a handful of papers and sent me on my way. I only remember three things from my gifted testing experience from back in 11th grade:
my parents’ response(s) on the questionnaire about their observations of me at home (we’ll tuck this story away for another time);
the timed IQ test I had to take; and
the results of the testing.
The results of the test finally came, and you can imagine my disappointment when I read that I received a 128 on the test, but the cut-off to get identified gifted was 130. Needless to say, I did not get to take the “Mentorship in Law” class my senior year due to this dinosaur of a practice in the field of gifted education. It would be many years before I got justice for this disappointment of testing, but I did eventually redeem that score (that’s a story for another time).
Have you ever had a situation where high-stakes testing impacted your life in some way? I’d love to hear about it! ~Ann
Maybe you’re new to teaching gifted students. Maybe you’ve been teaching gifted students for a long time but are still unclear about how they are identified as gifted. Well, today’s post is for you! I’m kicking off a blog series about gifted identification to provide background knowledge to teachers of the gifted. I hope you will have better insights into what it means to be gifted by the end of it.
Is She Born with It? Nature versus Nurture in Giftedness
We’ve heard it before: “Jose´ is an amazing reader. He has natural ability,” or, “Fiona is so good at science! She was just born with a science brain.” Conversely, we’ve all heard someone say something like this: “I’m just not a math person,” (true fact- I used to say that ALL THE TIME!). All of these statements stir-up an age-old question in the field of gifted education- is giftedness caused by nature or nurture? A long, long time ago, scholars believed that intelligence was innate- you were born with it. But, around the 1960’s, researchers started to notice that nurture strongly impacted a student’s intelligence, too. So, which is it- nature, or nurture? I happen to firmly believe that BOTH nature and nurture play important roles in giftedness. This is really important for teachers to realize. Over the next several months, I’ll share everything I know about how these two factors interact to impact our intelligence, and how understanding this interaction shaped my teaching. And I’ll start with a story from my 11th grade year that revolves around the number 128. Until then, stretch your teaching, stretch your students. And, please leave a comment with your thoughts and questions! ~Ann
If you’re reading this and thinking “I wish I had someone to walk me through this with more support…,” you’re not alone. Whether you’re a classroom teacher striving to better challenge your gifted learners, a gifted coordinator looking for research-based professional learning and coaching, or a parent homeschooling a gifted student and wondering what comes next, I can help. I love partnering with educators and families to build confidence, deepen understanding, and create learning experiences that truly challenge and engage gifted and high-ability students. From tailored professional development and coaching to practical classroom strategies and resources, let’s work together to meet the needs of your most advanced learners. Visit my Resources & Services page to learn more and get in touch. I’d love to support you on this journey!
I’m so excited to write my very first blog post for Teaching for Talent! Briefly, I’m Ann Colorado, an educator of gifted students who deeply believes in talent development to nurture the academic strengths of all students. I’m also a wife, mother (of humans, dogs, cats, and at several times, of fish), daughter, sister, cousin, friend, runner (once it gets warm outside again, at least), voracious reader, beach-lover, and dancer to Alt 80’s and New Wave music that my husband and his band play. I created Teaching for Talent to support teachers to challenge all learners in their classrooms, especially gifted and advanced students. Though teachers have the best intentions, sometimes they just don’t know how to differentiate their instructional strategies to meet the varying academic needs in their classrooms. They also often don’t have time to learn how. This blog is a space for all of us to share our thoughts, experiences, hopes, and ideas in order to better meet the needs of this special population of students in their classrooms. My wish for you is to find “your people” here in this space. What are your needs, questions, and dreams for gifted students, advanced students, and ALL students in your classroom? Drop a comment and tell us! I hope to hear from you soon. ~ Ann
Teaching for Talent 