Reflections on Gifted Education

On March 26, 2021, the National Center for Research on Gifted Education hosted an all-day workshop to review findings in our field of gifted education during the past seven years. They reported on much of the data obtained from studies funded by the Javits Grant (the only nationally funded engine for research in gifted education in America).

The best news of the day came very early – Wisconsin had more people registered for this event than any other state or country! Way to go, Wisconsin! It was great “to see” so many of you online.

As the day progressed, it became very evident that we continue to have much to do in the field of gifted education in our nation. Many of the problems that have plagued gifted education for decades continue to be problems. Here are some of my takeaways from the day’s first presentation by Betsy McCoach, which were based on the data analyzed from three (unidentified) states in the United States:

• A student remains six times more likely to be identified as gifted if s/he is not part of a currently underrepresented population (e.g., Black, Latinx, EL, low income).
• The greater the number of free and reduced lunch students in a school district, the less likely it is that gifted students will be identified, though there is some variability within districts.
• Gifted kids are most often identified at grade three, with grades two and four being the second most utilized option; only 3+% of schools identified students in kindergarten, first and second grade for services.
• Cognitive tests are the most frequently used identification (90-95% of districts), followed by non-verbal tests (41-68%), creativity tests (4-44%); parent and teacher nominations were also common.
• Each year a student receives EL services, s/he is 30% less likely to be identified for gifted services (one state’s data).
• The types of services provided for gifted students were represented in this way – 33% push-in, 45% homogeneous grouping, 54% cluster grouping, 72% pull-out.
• Gifted and talented curriculum was not separate from the regular curriculum, although districts reported curriculum centered around critical thinking, creative thinking, extensions in math and language arts; process skills were stressed over above-level content.
• Whole-grade acceleration was reported in 26% of the districts, subject acceleration was reported in 35% of the districts, and 33% of the districts reported no acceleration whatsoever.
• There was not always a match between gifted and talented services and missed regular-classroom work; for example, a student identified in math may receive gifted services, but not necessarily in math during math time.
• Removing gifted students from a regular classroom didn’t seem to affect other students in a class.

After the initial review of the data, a panel of experts shared their “take” on the data. The panel included Del Siegle, Paula Olzewski-Kubelius, Joyce VanTassel-Baska, Rena Subotnik, Jennifer Jolly, Todd Kettler, and Michael Matthews. Here are some of their observations:

• Critical and creative thinking must be embedded into the existing curriculum, not taught separately.
• Critical and creative thinking skills must not be a substitute for accelerated content; content and process (curriculum and instruction) must be linked.
• Teacher training in gifted education remains an important link to delivering consistent services to gifted children (they spend the majority of time in their regular classrooms).
• More attention needs to be paid to using common Core State Standards to assess proficiency, and to move students ahead as they master content; NGT Best Practice Standards can also guide our work.
• Quality differentiation is not happening with consistency. 
• Administrators must buy into gifted education practices; they must support acceleration, differentiation; more work needs to be done to advocate for policy level changes, acceleration, cluster grouping, and use of local norms.
• We need to pay more attention to pre-talent development of our youngest learners, and ongoing talent development of all learners; we are losing kids in the talent pipeline.
• School districts need help choosing universal screeners and applying local norms; we must also think about moving kids beyond local norms into national benchmarks, so that they are prepared for things such as Advanced Placement opportunities. 

A second presentation was by Dr. Daniel Long and then by Dr. E. Jean Gibbins. Highlights of Dr. Long’s presentation included these ideas:

• Students under-identified for gifted education services included Black, free-and-reduced priced lunch, and English Learner students, even when we control for achievement. Conversely, Asian and non-free-and-reduced lunch students are over-represented in identification.
• Very few districts re-assess gifted and talented students once they are formally identified.
• There was conflicting data surrounding parent nominations; in some cases, parent nominations found more FRPL (free-and-reduced priced lunch) students, in other cases, parent nominations did not find more FRPL students.
• There seems to be no positive effects for the use of non-verbal identification screeners, and in one state there was a negative effect
• Because students are most often identified at grade three, there are many early opportunity gaps.
• Universal screeners and non-verbal tests are not the panaceas that we once believed would solve identification gaps.

Dr. E. Jean Gibbins then followed with a presentation that highlighted what could be done to improve identification of English Learners. She recommended these things:

• First, she recommended universal screening that is culturally sensitive, takes into account speed of English acquisition, is reliable and valid, and uses multiple tools.
• She recommended alternative pathways to identification, including assessing in the child’s native language, using other multilingual staff (e.g., school psychologists) to assess students, preparation programs, and creating a talent pool of students.
• She stressed creating a “web of communication” including an identification committee, outreach to the community, collaboration in and beyond departments, and fostering an intentional effort to find underrepresented students.
• Finally, she recommended professional development as a change lever -- professional development that is ongoing for students and teachers, a systemic analysis of data both at the school and district level, examining our teacher corps (how diverse is our staff?), and expecting that all teachers will be talent scouts. 

Dr. Gibbins’ presentation was followed by another panel discussion. Members of the panel included Don Ambrose, Laura Guiliano, Marcia Gentry, Dante Dixon and Matt Makel. Here are some questions and recommendations from this panel:

• Consider when and how parent nominations occur…should they be pre-identification, or during the identification process? Make sure that questions are culturally appropriate and understood by parents.
• Consider that universal identification may not work, and that non-verbal screeners may not be the answer. We may be “in a romance with measurement because we don’t trust human judgment” (Gentry). We may be trusting “pseudo quantification precision” – trusting tests rather than human precision (Ambrose).
• We need to collaborate more with international gifted groups and with inter-disciplinary groups to gain larger perspectives.
• Should we have “gates” during the screening process – you must pass one gate before you are admitted to the talent pool?
• Districts must know their own data intimately; they must know what needs to be done and then set a measurable plan.
• Consider using the term “well-represented” in talking about groups of students served by gifted education programming; avoid the term “over-represented,” as it can be more divisive.
• Look for “hidden giftedness” in unlikely places (Ambrose).

Allison Kenney and Carolyn Callahan provided the next glimpse into the state of gifted education by examining the qualitative portion (or phase 2) of what teachers who work with gifted students actually DO. Here are her observations, gleaned from 87 interviews with teachers, 148 classroom observations, and 16 interviews with administrators:

• Many teachers indicated that no differentiation was possible in their classrooms due to the rigidity of pacing guides, and lack of autonomy. When teachers answered that they did differentiate, they often stated that they could differentiate process (instruction and materials, and sometimes pacing), but not content. 
• Many teachers saw differentiation as something only done during DI (Differentiated Instruction) “time”. While students needing remediation received time with teachers during DI time, gifted students often worked alone, in small groups on tasks, or on computers.  
• Kenney and Callahan surmised that perhaps high-stakes accountability is limiting teacher autonomy and adaptability. (This supposition is supported by other literature regarding high-stakes testing.)
• Principals are a mediating force in the effort to deliver services to gifted students and their teachers. They need to see which teachers need/are ready for autonomy, and which teachers need more accountability. They also can be instrumental in setting up “advice networks” among teachers, thus allowing teachers to help teachers.
• Policy needs to be checked often – is it working, is it happening, what needs to be changed or updated?
• Teachers need to be encouraged to utilize vast and varied resources to meet the needs of their students.

A panel discussion with Lauri Kirsch, Lisette Rodriguez, Dr. Jann Leppien, Emily Mofield, and Sandra Kapan followed. Here are some of their thoughts regarding what is actually happening regarding differentiated instruction for gifted students:

• Differentiated instruction is not happening; this is attributed to the common practice of “walk-throughs,” during which all teachers should be doing the same things at the same time.
• Differentiated instruction is often not understood, or it is watered down. It is implemented when there is time; it is not infused into daily curriculum and learning.
• Principals need to buy-in to DI. They need to be engaged and need to share gifted and talented alignments with the rest of the school. “If a principal supports gifted education strategies, a school will support them.”
• How do we use pacing guides, autonomy, and DI effectively?
• Pre-assessment is imperative! It must be followed with adaptable curriculum and conscientious implementation.
• We need more licensing of gifted and talented teachers.
• We need to utilize all of the components of DI more effectively – compacting, enrichment, acceleration…
• Curriculum may be dictated, but process (instruction) may be modified.
• We need to get our math and language arts specialists trained in gifted education.
• We need to examine our purchased materials. How directive are they? How much direct instruction is mandated? How much flexibility/differentiation is allowed?
• We must balance “implement curriculum with fidelity” with flexibility, because flexibility is necessary for differentiation.
• We need to utilize gifted education coaches.
• We need to spend less time and money on identification, and more time and money on programming.
• We need to study principals who are successful and supportive of gifted students. What are they doing? How can we help administrators (who are often also judged by high-stakes testing results) to handle the pressure of accountability, while supporting teachers’ efforts to differentiate for learner needs? Do we hire administrators for this ability, or train them to balance both?

Finally, Susan Dulong facilitated table discussions and questions and answers about the question “What needs to be done?” Some promising ideas emerged from the group at large. These included:

• Utilize universal screening with local norms and multiple measures.
• Provide (and require) pre-service credits in gifted education for all teachers.
• Embed critical and creative thinking skills into existing curriculum.
• Define, educate teachers, and use differentiation strategies consistently in classrooms.
• Encourage pre-assessment and continuous assessment, as they are the engines that drive differentiation.
• Consider coaching by gifted education specialists as vital to serving the needs of gifted students and their families. GT specialists can be “professional development on legs.”
• Communicate our findings about gifted education practices to all stakeholders, especially those beyond our usual circles.
• Look at gifted education access across all types of schools (public, parochial, private, choice, vouchers, charters, homeschoolers). What is working? How and why? What can be upscaled?

While the findings shared this day were somewhat discouraging for me, I am eternally hopeful that we will continue to make progress in gifted education. Persistence, ingenuity, and doing better as we continue to learn will be our motivators. I look forward to hearing ideas from all of you about these findings. Together we grow.

Jackie Drummer, Past President
WI Association for Talented and Gifted

To view the recording of this day, go to: ncrge.uconn.edu

(WATG would like to extend a huge thank you to Dr. Martha Aracely-Lopez of Milwaukee Public Schools for translating this article into Spanish for our Spanish-speaking families and educators. The translation can also be found in our website blogs.)