You are on page 1of 19
THE UPDATE! FALL, 2013
THE UPDATE!
FALL, 2013

Efective Program Models

for Gifed Students fom Underserved Populations Edited by

Cheryll Adams and Kimberley Chandler

The following text is from the introduction of Eective Program Practices for Underserved Gi"ed Students, A CEC - TAG Educational Resource. It is used with permission from Prufrock Press, Inc.

THE UPDATE! FALL, 2013 E f ective Program Models for Gi f ed Students f om

Introduction

This publication provides coordinators, teachers, administrators, parents, and other interested parties with information about eective program models for underserved gifted students. In this book, we identify eight successful programs that have been designed to use with low-income, high-ability students. Each chapter includes an introduction and brief overview of the model, how students are identified for the program, which talents are valued, the goals of the project, a description of the model, dicult issues and how they are addressed, important contributions of the program, research findings, how the program is sustained, and contact information.

THE UPDATE!

FALL, 2013

Continued $om page 1

Two entries focus specifically on primary-aged students: Young Scholars and Project Clarion. Young Scholars is a model for finding and nurturing potential in diverse populations of young students; it started 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 primary students. An interesting connection is that the curriculum units developed in Project Clarion are frequently used as a component of some Young Scholars programs.

Project Athena and Project M 3 (Mentoring Mathematical Minds) were Javits demonstration projects that were developed to nurture students in the upper elementary grades. Project Athena was a language arts program that used curriculum originally designed specifically for gifted students in a heterogeneous, Title I setting in which there were often no identified students. Project products included novel study guides to give teachers additional options and a program for scaolding reading comprehension. Project M 3 was also a program that generated curriculum products, but with an emphasis 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 diering degrees for secondary students. Although the Project Nexus program and Project EXCITE were funded through public monies, the Next Generation Venture Fund and the TEAK fellowship were dependent on private and corporate sponsorships.

By including models and programs that span the grade levels, focus on dierent content areas, and represent a variety of funding schemes, it is hoped that the reader will be able to understand the diverse options that have been implemented eectively in finding and nurturing students from underrepresented populations. Although it may not be possible to replicate a given program exactly in one’s own district, the detailed description and the inclusion of contact information should give an administrator a starting point for developing a program tailored to his or her context.

THE UPDATE ! FALL, 2013 Continued $ om page 1 Two entries focus specifically on

THE UPDATE!

FALL, 2013

From the President ...

Your TAG Board came to Bowling Green, Kentucky, to conduct business for our organization September 6 and 7. Fifteen of the 17 members met to discuss issues and make plans for The Association for the Gifted. On Friday, they participated in the Fall TAG Institute with the theme “Celebrating Diversity Among Gifted Children.”

One TAG initiative is to launch a new online journal. Jennifer Jolly and Claire Hughes will be co-editors of Teaching Special Populations of Gifted Students (TSPGS). This journal is intended to Rill a niche that ties in with TAG’s focus on diversity, a focus that is long standing.

From the President ... Your TAG Board came to Bowling Green, Kentucky, to conduct business fory ear to stren g then TAG as an organization. Keep up with TAG at the website ( www.cectag.org ) , on Facebook, and by reading the TAG Update . Sincerely, Julia Link Roberts TAG President " id="pdf-obj-2-21" src="pdf-obj-2-21.jpg">

The gathering of TAG board members provided the opportunity to create a dozen podcasts that have been added to the TAG website as a member beneRit. Two of the podcasts have been placed on the main website while others are available to TAG members on the website.

Children and young people with gifts need your advocacy. They need for you to speak out on behalf of laws and policies that address their needs, needs related to their strengths rather than deRiciencies. Because the needs of gifted children come from their strengths, they may not look “needy,” so your advocacy will be very important to receiving appropriate services.

Plan to come to the TAG Symposium at the CEC Conference in Philadelphia on April 9. The theme will be timely – The Common Core Standards and Gifted Children. Then plan to stay for the conference as there will be many interesting sessions.

Let’s work together during the 2013-2014 school year to strengthen TAG as an organization. Keep up with TAG at the website (www.cectag.org), on Facebook, and by reading the TAG Update.

Sincerely, Julia Link Roberts TAG President

From the Editor... Dear TAG Members, This newsletter is dedicated to the memory of Dr. Laurence
From the Editor...
Dear TAG Members,
This newsletter is dedicated to the memory of Dr. Laurence J.
Coleman. Please see pages 4 and 5 for a tribute to him written by
past CEC-TAG President Susan Johnsen.
Best regards,
Kimberley L. Chandler
TAG Newsletter Editor

THE UPDATE!

FALL, 2013

In Memory of Laurence (Larry) Joseph Coleman

(1941-2013)

In Memory of Laurence (Larry) Joseph Coleman (1941-2013)

THE UPDATE!

FALL, 2013

By Susan K. Johnsen

I have been most fortunate to have grown up in a time when I could do things that I value. Larry Coleman (2005, p. 131)

The secret of gifed education is that you put teachers who want to be there with 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, at Panther 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 specialized high schools in New York. He received a bachelor's degree in history and a minor in education from the State University of New York at Albany in 1963, a master's degree in special education from Southern Connecticut State University in 1965, and a doctorate in gifted and special education from Kent State University in 1975. His first faculty position was at the University of Tennessee-Knoxville. In the 2001 academic year, he moved to the University of Toledo to start an innovative program to prepare teachers of 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, Ben Burland; brother and sister-in-law, Robert "Bob" (Barbara) Daggett, and several cousins, nephews, and their families.

Larry’s contributions as a scholar and a teacher were numerous, and he set many standards for the field of gifted education. He was a highly skilled and talented qualitative researcher whose studies ranged from 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 eects the development of talent in children, and how children forgo other activities to pursue their passion for learning. He delved deeply into each of these topics because he strongly believed that you needed to study 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 talented and gifted adolescents to explore the eect 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 Child Quarterly, and the 2004 Outstanding Leadership and Service Award from The Association for the Gifted of the Council for Exceptional Children.

THE UPDATE!

FALL, 2013

Continued $om page 5

He viewed himself, first and foremost, as a teacher. As he mentioned in one of his bios, “I am a teacher who became a professor. Both enable me to be a perpetual student” (Coleman, 2005, p. 13). He was especially proud of developing an innovative teacher preparation program based on the model of teaching as a talent and building the Summer Institute for Gifted Children in 1980, which has been continued by its former students, and is now located in Warren Wilson College in North Carolina. More recently, he was involved in a five-year Javits grant, Accelerating Achievement in Math and Science in Urban Schools (AAMSUS), which provided after-school educational programs for economically disadvantaged students with potential in math and science.

He was a mentor to many of us. When he was editor of the Journal for the Education of the Gi"ed, he viewed his role as “raising the level of scholarship in the field, which meant encouraging young people who are coming up in our field and encouraging established people to conduct studies or write on topics they wouldn’t ordinarily think about writing about” (Henshon, 2009, p. 56). I remember clearly how he provided Gail Ryser and me with our first opportunity to guest edit a special issue on Javits Projects focusing on eective classroom instructional practices. I know that many of us have experienced his encouragement and support.

He treasured honesty and his relationships with his friends and colleagues. Each of us looked forward to those “Larry” moments at conventions and meetings where we would sit together at dinner or much later, share our philosophical and political viewpoints, our hopes for developing a better future, and funny stories about ourselves. Of course, Larry also shared his recent peace marches. In all cases, he always oered respectful insights and wisdom.

We will all miss him deeply. No national gifted education meeting will ever be the same without him-- his smile, his laughter, his deep and abiding interest in each of us, and, of course, his dry sense of humor.

Peace, Larry.

References:

Coleman, L. (2005). Nurturing talent in high school: Life in the fast lane. NY: Teachers College Press. Cross, T. L. (2005). Moving the discussion from pathology to context: An interview with Laurence J. Coleman. Roeper Review, 28, 5-8. Henshon, S. E. (2009). An interview with Laurence J. Coleman. Gi"ed Child Today, 32(1), 55-58.

THE UPDATE!

FALL, 2013

By Claire E. Hughes

Double Mindsets

Double Lines

  • I am not a psychologist. I am a teacher of teachers, a parent and a voracious reader. That being said, I’ve

been reading a lot by psychologists recently. Dr. Marty Seligman, former President of the American Psychological Association, has been instrumental in the concept of “positive psychology,” in which we look not at what people can’t do, but at what people can do. A quote that caught my ear in one of his

TED Talks was that “health is more than the absence of illness”; you can’t define one by the lack of the otherthey are separate constructs. In his book, Flourish, Seligman (2012) describes how psychology previously focused on relieving misery, and as a result would--at best--alleviate some of the problems, but also create a “personality shift towards depression” (p.1). In contrast, a person who is flourishing is moving towards well-being not “happiness” as a singular emotional state, but a condition of multiple, ongoing choices that interact together. These choices, according to Seligman, are: positive emotions, engagement, positive relationships, meaning, and accomplishments.

  • I was struck at the relationship between positive psychology and traditional psychology in the

educational eorts for a twice-exceptional child. In an earlier column, I described the “Janusian” aspect of 2e children--that from one view, a characteristic is negative, yet from another, it’s a positive aspect. (For example- Blurts out/ highly verbal). They are two sides of the same coin, and yet approached very dierently. Special education tends to have a negative view (identify areas of weakness, remediate them until they are no longer an issue) while gifted education takes the opposite approach (identify areas of strength and grow them). These diering viewpoints can lead to quite the struggle in an educational setting. “Focusing on his strengths is a great idea,” said one teacher I worked with. “But I sti% have to bring up his reading scores.

Because I am, ultimately, a teacher of teachers and not a theoretician, I have been in search of a means of concretely describing to teachers what focusing on strengths while remediating diculties might look like. There are the classics:

Use their area of interest to link to content, such as dinosaurs. They can add dinosaurs! Teach place value through eons! Teach phonics through dinosaur names! (Good luck with that one…) The problem is that “dinosaurs” is used as a means of increasing engagement. Always helpful, but ultimately, the content is a vehicle, not the learning itself. Children fascinated by dinosaurs may learn that their passion is being harnessed to something negative and they can lose interest in both things. They have to see that there is new learning to be had through a connection of concepts, not just themes.

THE UPDATE!

FALL, 2013

Continued $om page 7

Use their abilities to help with their disability. Often, 2e children have specific abilities and global

areas of challenge--use their powers to help them solve their own problems. I worked with a

highly gifted child who had autism to memorize hundreds of scripts: “When someone says

you say

, Her ability to memorize was used to help her find the words that were so often

missing because of her autism. People rarely recognized that she had autism because she had so

many scripts at her disposal!

 

Use multiple modes of learning. The Universal Design for Learning (UDL) framework states that there are multiple ways of representing knowledge, multiple ways to express knowledge and multiple ways to engage students through challenging them. This process allows for many paths to the same objective and creates the concept of choice. For more, see www.cast.org. Variety helps keep attention and allows twice-exceptional children time and multiple methods for processing. Activities such as Tic-Tac-Toe or a menu approach allows twice-exceptional children a way to approach learning in their most eective manner.

The challenge with these approaches is that they are trying to overcome challenges by using strengths, and it is dicult to look in both directions at the same time. The strengths aren’t being developed, but become a foundation upon which to grow weaker areas. If you are not continually growing, you are adrift.

I’ve finally found a means of looking at both areas from the same direction. In her work, Carol Dweck has identified “Mindsets” as a powerful way of looking at growth. Based on neurological growth and practice eects, Dweck gave a test to two groups of similarly-performing, high-achieving students. The first group were told how “smart” they were and how easy the test was for them. The second group were told how hard they worked and what wonderfully eective strategies they used. Both groups were then given another, more dicult, test. The group who had been praised for their eorts did significantly better than the group who were told how smart they were. Kids who were told how “smart” they were became unwilling to risk that self-concept when work became challenging. Dweck’s work has gotten a lot of attention. Recently, the Gates Foundation has endorsed it as a way to restructure educational feedback to students through an emphasis on growth-modeled assessments.

Her work, and other studies by Angela Duckworth, has found that when students are given dierent feedback, there are dierent results. There are a number of researchers who are looking at the roles that innate brain dierences play in the dierential eects and how mindsets can or cannot be taught. But we do know that these “noncognitive factors” play as much, if not more so, of a role in achievement as genes and innate ability play (Crocker & Park, 2012; Tough, 2013). Persistence pays o. Feedback that emphasizes practice and growth, and perceives errors as learning and challenges, rather than mistakes, results in greater growth. Mistakes, and learning from them, result in greater growth of neurological connections. The emphasis is on growth, not remediation. Growth in all areas.

THE UPDATE!

FALL, 2013

Continued $om page 8

Growth by itself is not enough, however. Altering students' beliefs about the nature of intelligence may not help much, if they do not also alter their general view of the purpose of schooling. "A glib way of putting 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 backfire. Telling students that their learning new skills will help their families might help create need for eort.

One of the biggest implications is to reframe “strengths” and “weaknesses” because those are fixed components. There is only growth and strategies that achieve growth. A “strength” then becomes the use of an eective strategy, while a “weakness” is the search for a strategy that is yet to be tried. I don’t want to be simplistic about this --this is not merely a motivational issue. This has to do, at its root, with neurological 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. I’m reminded of the 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 several possible actions:

Realize that “lazy” means that students are too invested in the outcome and not the results from

their work--the grades, not the results of the grades. Emphasize the results from eort. Emphasize the contribution- how their learning positively aects others.

Emphasize the connection to larger goals. Again, I’m 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 these ends 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 grade itself? 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. They have to see the growth themselves.

Celebrate the learning process - mistakes are necessary. The brain must see mistakes in order to operate more eectively. 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 a disability. They have unusual neurological wiring in that some pathways are very ecient and others are much less ecient. 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 a flourishing, singular human being, rather than a collection of mismatched labels. And according to Seligman, growth, when connected to relationships, and an emphasis on the positive, leads to happiness.

THE UPDATE!

FALL, 2013

Continued $om page 9

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" Behind leaves behind: The roles of IQ and self-control in predicting standardized achievement 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? Conscientious adults excel in both objective and subjective success. Frontiers in Personality Science and Individual Dierences, 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 the Gates Foundation. Seattle, WA.

Lopez, S. J. & Louis, M.C. (2009). The principles of strengths -based education. Journal of Co%ege and

Character, 10(4), ISSN (Online) 1940-1639, DOI:

Seligman, M. (2012). Flourish. New York: Free Press

Tough, P. (2013). How children succeed: Grit, curiosity, and the hidden power of character. New York: Mariner Books.

THE UPDATE ! FALL, 2013 Continued $ om page 9 References: Crocker, J. & Park,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: Mariner Books. Recent Litigation Related to Gifted Education: McFadden v. Board of Education for Ilinois 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 determined that the way in 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 julia.roberts@wku.edu. The ideas for protocols and plans will be included on the TAG website and in a future issue of The Update. ! PAGE 10 " id="pdf-obj-9-126" src="pdf-obj-9-126.jpg">
Recent Litigation Related to Gifted Education: McFadden v. Board of Education for Ilinois School District U-46
Recent Litigation Related to Gifted Education:
McFadden v. Board of Education for Ilinois 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 determined that the way in 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 julia.roberts@wku.edu. The ideas for protocols and
plans will be included on the TAG website and in a future issue of The Update.

THE UPDATE!

FALL, 2013

The CEC - TAG Diversity Award Equity for Under - represented Minority Students

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. In 2010, The Council for Exceptional Children’s Talented and Gifted Division provided guidance for educators and families of gifted students to embrace excellence and equity. Scholars and practitioners joined forces and issued a national call to action about Diversity and Developing Gifts and Talents that derived from the pervasive under-representation of specific groups in gifted and talented programs. “With all children and youth, expressions of potential differ as a result of family background and experiences with social institutions. As we continue to implement traditional educational policies and practices, we ignore these differences and contribute to the inequities. Our schools must reflect society’s changing values about excellence

and 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, family structure, or use of technology, accompany our changing population. We must move toward ensuring equitable outcomes for all children and youth in educational programs” (CEC-TAG, 2010, p. 3).

This award honors teacher excellence and activism that exemplifies CEC-TAG’s efforts to move education to a new level of understanding and to a new level of innovative possibilities for service delivery for under-represented groups of gifted and talented students.

Purpose: The purpose of this national award is to recognize a teacher who has: (1) demonstrated a commitment to enhancing excellence 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 recipient’s home-state.

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

receive

Cover sheet:

Provide

personal

and

school background information.

Research

student enrollment

information and enter data.

 

Letter of application:

highlighting the three purposes of the award. Applicants should review the criteria for

the

award to guide the development of his/her letter. Use Microsoft Word to generate application letter, using the following parameters: not to exceed 3 single-spaced pages, Times, 12 point font, 1 inch margins. Résumé: 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 to

the impact of your contribution to outcomes associated with his/her experiences.

THE UPDATE!

FALL, 2013

The CEC - TAG Diversity Award Equity for Under - represented Minority Students

The CEC-TAG Diversity Award

Equity for Under-represented Minority Students

Applications will be reviewed by a panel of CEC-TAG members according to the following criteria.

  • A. Commitment to Excellence and Equity for Under-represented Gifted Students. (20 points)

Guiding Question: In what ways has the teacher’s commitment to excellence and equity benefited under-represented talented students?

Evidence: The applicant provided:

groups of gifted and

two or more clear examples demonstrating how the teacher has consistently engaged in efforts to impact students from

under-represented groups of students; ongoing direct and/or indirect advocacy that sustained growth or enhanced outcomes among under-represented groups of students in gifted and talented programs.

  • B. Culturally Responsive Classroom or Program Innovations. (15 points)

Guiding Question:

In what ways has the teacher’s efforts demonstrated

an innovative level of cultural

in the classroom or program? Evidence: The applicant clearly provided evidence of effective efforts:

responsiveness

to infuse culturally responsive principles and practices that resulted in increasing diversity and developing gifts and talents in advanced classes and programs. For example, the teacher’s work explains how he/she was effective in finding giftedness in under-represented groups of students and/or to ensuring equitable curriculum and learning environments.

  • C. Leadership Potential to Promote NAGC/CEC Teacher Standards, Excellence, and Equity. (10 points)

Guiding Question:

In what ways has the teacher demonstrated strong potential to advance the NAGC/CEC standards and

to promote best practices for excellence and equity for all students?

Evidence: The applicant clearly explained how his/her work exemplified:

two evidenced-based practices from the NAGC/CEC Pre-K-Grade 12 Gifted Programming Standards;

one of the Diversity Focused NAGC-CEC Teacher Preparation Standards in Gifted Education;

effectiveness in helping to inform or prepare educators and/or families to engage best practices in gifted under-represented groups.

education for

  • D. Letters of Support (15 points)

Guiding Question:

Does the teacher demonstrate effort to address excellence and equity that are strongly recognized by

individuals within his/her school community? Evidence: The application provided strong letters of support for his/her work surrounding under-representation and

equity by:

an administrator

a colleague or parent

a student

Parent, Community, and Diversity Committee Co-Chairs:

Fred A. Bonner II, Ed.D.

Samuel DeWitt Proctor Chair in Education Rutgers University, GSE 10 Seminary Place New Brunswick, New Jersey 08901

(732) 932-7496

Donna Y Ford, Ph.D.

Tarek C. Grantham, Ph.D. Associate Professor Gifted & Creative Education Department of Educational Psychology. The University of Georgia 325M Aderhold Hall Athens, GA 30602 grantham@uga.edu 706-542-4110

Professor, Dept. of Special Education & Dept. of Teaching and Learning (secondary appt.) Peabody College of Education One Magnolia Circle Bldg. (Room 315A) 230 Appleton

THE UPDATE!

FALL, 2013

The CEC - TAG Diversity Award Equity for Under - represented Minority Students

The CEC-TAG Diversity Award

Equity for Under-represented Minority Students

Application Cover Sheet

The purpose of this national award is to recognize a teacher who has: (1) demonstrated a commitment to enhancing excellence 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.

Deadline: Friday, January 31, 2014 by 5:00 pm. Email Application materials to Dr. Tarek Grantham grantham@uga.edu

I. Teacher Information

First Name: Last Name: Gender (Type X): ( ) M ( ) F Race / Ethnicity:
First Name:
Last Name:
Gender (Type X):
(
) M
(
)
F
Race / Ethnicity:
Language/s Spoken:
# & Name of Gifted
Education Confe rences
Att ended:
E-mail Address:
Alternate E-mail Address
Cell Phone Number:
Alternate Phone Number:
Subject/s Taught:
Grade Level:
# Years Teaching:
# Yrs. in Gifted Program

II. School Information

School District:

 

School Name:

 

School Address:

 

City:

 

THE UPDATE!

FALL, 2013

The CEC - TAG Diversity Award Equity for Under - represented Minority Students

The CEC-TAG Diversity Award

Equity for Under-represented Minority Students

III. School District and School Gifted Program Enrollment Information

Race/Ethnicity

% in School District Overall

% in Your Gifted Program

American Indian

   

Asian / Pacific Islander

   

Black / African American

   

Hispanic / Latino

   

White

   

Other

   
 

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.

_________________________

Teacher’s Signature

_______________

Date

_________________________

Principal’s Signature

_______________

Date

Note: Typed electronic signature is acceptable.

THE UPDATE!

FALL, 2013

Five Reasons Gifted Education Advocates Must Take Their Message to Congress

By Kim Hymes, CEC’s Director of Policy and Advocacy

While good news coming from Washington, DC seems to be rare, recent policy victories for gifted education advocates must keep our community energized to see these proposals over the finish line. Here are five reasons why we need a loud, collective voice:

1.)

It’s been a tough few years. In 2011, Congress voted to eliminate all funding for the sole federal investment that supported gifted learners, the Jacob K. Javits Gifted and Talented Students Education 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 to sequestration, over $2 billion was cut from the U.S. Department of Education resulting in less federal support for key education programs such as Title I and special education. When local budgets 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 recognizes their 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 finish line. Over the last few months, gifted education advocates were successful in getting key provisions from the TALENT Act (S. 512/H.R. 2338) into the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act passed by the Senate Education Committee. Under this bill, teachers could receive gifted education training and students from underrepresented backgrounds would have greater opportunities to access gifted education.

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

THE UPDATE!

FALL, 2013

Society Member Activation Instructions For your SAGE Journals Online (SJO) Account

The electronic version of the Journal for the Education of the Gifted (JEG) is available through SAGE Journals Online (SJO). To activate your account please follow these steps:

  • 1. Go to the SAGE Journals Online site: https://online.sagepub.com/cgi/activate/basic.

  • 2. Where it says “Activate Your Online Subscription:” enter your Member ID then select The Association for the Gifted-CEC (TAG-CEC) from the Society drop down menu and click “Submit.”

  • 3. On the “Instructions” page be sure to check your personal data. Enter a username and password and click submit to conOirm activation. Do not click the Journal Title link until the conOirmation process is complete.

  • 4. Once complete, return to the electronic Journal homepage and select the Journal cover for access to the current issue or click “Current Issue.”

  • 5. To select an issue from the archive click “All Issues”.

  • 6. To search for articles either click “Search this journal” or use the “Advance Journal Search”.

The username and password you create you will use when returning to the site http://jeg.sagepub.com/. If you forget your username or password go to the “Subscribe” tab and look for the link “What to do if you forget your User Name and/or Password” under “Managing your Subscription to Journal for the Education of the Gifted” which will take you to the following link http://online.sagepub.com/cgi/recnamepwd. You will be asked to provide some information about yourself. Upon conOirmation of the information your username and/or password will be emailed to you.

If you require further assistance, please contact your Society’s Member Services Dept. or contact SAGE directly at societymember@sagepub.com.

THE UPDATE! FALL, 2013 Fall TAG Institute: “Celebrating Diversity Among Gifted Children”
THE UPDATE!
FALL, 2013
Fall TAG Institute:
“Celebrating Diversity Among Gifted Children”
THE UPDATE! FALL, 2013 Fall TAG Institute: “Celebrating Diversity Among Gifted Children”
THE UPDATE!
FALL, 2013
Fall TAG Institute:
“Celebrating Diversity Among Gifted Children”
THE UPDATE! FALL, 2013
THE UPDATE!
FALL, 2013

Common Core State Standards and Gifted Education

What does the Common Core mean for gifted students? Join experts in the field of gifted
What does the Common Core mean for gifted students?
Join experts in the field of gifted education to learn more about the Common Core State
Standards. Practical examples will be provided to illustrate how the CCSS can be
differentiated to meet the learning needs of gifted students.
April 9, 2014
8:30 am –3:00 pm
Philadelphia Convention Center, Philadelphia, PA

For more information email Dr. Jennifer Jolly: jjolly@lsu.edu