GIFTED CHILDREN

An Electronic Journal of the AERA SIG Research on Giftedness and Talent.

Volume 2 Number 1 Fall 2007

Contents Hello from the Editor,

Letter from the Editor

Dona Matthews ...........................1
Identification and Intervention
for Rural, Low-income, Gifted
Students: A Follow-up Study
Shirley Aamidor ..........................2
Economic Arguments for Gifted
Education
Pamela R. Clinkenbeard.............6
Project HOPE
Jillian C. Gates, Marcia Gentry,
Rebecca L. Mann,
& Jean S. Peterson ……………..8
Pathways to the Top:
Scaffolding Success for Black
and Latino Students
Holly Hertberg-Davis .............. 10
Assessing the Impact of a
Proposed Rule Change
Michael S. Matthews ............... 12
Dona Matthews
I’ve been enjoying my correspondence with you as I’ve been assembling articles for
this issue of the e-journal of the AERA ROGAT Special Interest Group. I love the
vibrancy of this e-journal format, as it allows people to report on work in progress and
discuss ideas in the field as they emerge.
I’m a great proponent of the motivation, engagement, and learning possibilities in
thoughtfully informed controversy, and you’ll see that we’ve got a good bit of that in
this issue. We have a review by Joan Freeman of a book on a very controversial topic
in our field, Indigo Children. And in a funny coincidental way, that piece ties into one
of our other contributions—Joe Renzulli is the only other person in the field who I’ve
heard (at NAGC last year) publicly discuss this phenomenon, saying that it is one of
the worst things to happen to our field in the past ten years, and Joe has written a
piece for this issue on the Renzulli Learning System. It is my opinion that Renzulli
Learning is one of the most exciting advances in the field of education in many years.
It enables children and educators to take practical guided advantage of the powerful
learning opportunity that is the Internet. The possibilities for supporting gifted
development are extraordinary, and only just beginning to be realized.

A Technology-Based Resource This ties into the piece that Michael Matthews (no relative!) has written on the
Joseph S. Renzulli
changing legislation on gifted identification in Florida—Michael’s concern is that with
& Sally M. Reis ......................... 14
these changes, English Language Learners who need the kind of support that Renzulli
Book Review Learning provides will not be getting it. Similarly, Holly Hertberg Davis’s description
The Indigo Children: The New
Kids Have Arrived
of the research that she is doing with Carolyn Callahan focuses on making sure that
Reviewer: Joan Freeman ........ 15 all students get the support that they need for optimal academic development; she has
given us an early report on research in progress to consider ways to close the
AERA Research on Giftedness
and Talent SIG .............................. 16
achievement by race gap in high school, specifically in AP courses. This theme of
NAGC Conferemce Highlights addressing cultural/racial diversity in our field continues with Marcia Gentry’s
Matthew Makel ................................ 16 description of her research project at Purdue with Project HOPE, working to provide
Officers ........................................... 17 summer and Saturday learning opportunities for high-ability children who are
Working Committees................... 17
growing up in low-income families, as well as professional development for teachers
working with these students.

(continued on page 9)

Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent.
It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction.
Einstein

AERA Special Interest Groups Web Site: http://www.aeragifted.org/

Identification and Intervention for Rural, Low-income, Gifted Students:
A Follow-up Study
Shirley Aamidor, Ph.D.
Indiana University Kokomo
saamidor@iuk.edu
To identify children who demonstrate talent potential,
educators and researchers have begun to use multiple-
measure assessments rather than the narrower approach
traditionally used to identify children for academically gifted
programs, usually IQ or standardized achievement test scores.
One impetus for this change is the concern that many groups
of children are under-identified and therefore under-
represented in gifted programs. Included in the under-
represented population are children from specific racial,
ethnic, and cultural groups, e.g., African Americans (Ford,
Grantham, & Harris, 1996; Frasier, 1987); Hispanic students
(Bernal, 1979); American Indians (Tonemah, 1987); children
who exhibit language differences or limitations; children from
low socioeconomic status families (qualifying for poverty-
level support or free or reduced cost lunch); and children who
live in certain geographic areas (e.g., rural or inner-city areas,
border communities, and reservations).
The reality and limitations of many of the traditional
identification processes are, more often than not, at variance
with contemporary research and policy on identification.
Whereas appropriate practices may call for a
multidimensional approach, identification data are too
frequently collected from a single standardized measure and
teacher nominations. While important in the identification of
some gifted children, traditional identification measures such
as group standardized aptitude and/or achievement tests
ought not be the sole criterion in the identification process.
When used as the initial screening instrument to define a pool
of gifted and talented candidates, standardized measures may
under-identify or eliminate gifted and talented minority
students, including students from rural and inner city
economically disadvantaged backgrounds.
Standardized assessments and teacher nominations are
efficient and can be effective in identifying some gifted
children, but are not always appropriate for identifying high
ability children whose behavioral characteristics do not please
their teachers, who perform poorly on tests, or, whose
academic achievement has been constrained because of
limited experiences or opportunities. Identifying economically
disadvantaged gifted children in rural areas must be
considered within the context of rural communities, rural
schooling, and within the context of the two social classes,
“those who have control, and those who are vulnerable to that
control, the haves and have-nots” (Duncan, 1992). The
National Education Longitudinal Study (NCES, 1988)
reported that only 9 percent of students in gifted and talented
education programs were in the bottom quartile of family
income, while 47 percent of program participants were from
the top quartile in family income. While research concerning
alternative assessment is reported in the literature (Bernal,
1979; Frasier, 1987; Maker, 1986; Tonemah, 1987), these are
somewhat dated, with only a few studies that focus on rural,
Gifted Children Volume 2 Number 1
economically disadvantaged, gifted children (Spicker, 1993,
1996). Also, documenting the efficacy of appropriate
instruments or processes to identify students from under-
represented groups who show academic potential has not
been fruitful due to lack of follow-up on students. In some
cases, promising practices and alternative identification
procedures have been discontinued because students
identified through their use were not successful in gifted
programs, which were designed for traditionally identified
gifted students. Studies which have considered new or unique
methods of identification have found it difficult to follow up
on the appropriate type of program intervention required to
serve rural, economically disadvantaged students or to study
the long-term effects of alternative identification on students
as they proceed through the school system.
Projects SPRING I and SPRING II
Beginning in 1990, Project SPRING (Special Populations Rural
Information Network for the Gifted), one of sixteen projects
funded under the Jacob Javits Gifted and Talented Education
Act of 1988, investigated the unique talents of rural,
economically disadvantaged, gifted students. The project,
implemented in three rural school districts in southern
Indiana, accomplished the following goals:
1. Identified strengths and weaknesses which
characterize rural, economically disadvantaged, gifted
children.
2. Developed procedures for identifying rural,
disadvantaged, gifted children.
3. Developed and demonstrated curricula and
intervention practices appropriate for rural,
economically disadvantaged, gifted students.
A continuation of Project SPRING I in two school districts
followed-up those SPRING students identified in the fourth
grade, who were entering junior high school. The modified
science provided appropriate educational programming for
students. Project SPRING II (1993-1996) concluded as students
completed their first year of high school.
Projects SPRING I & II: Findings
An external evaluation collected data on students’ academic
performance when students completed 5th or 6th grade. While
SPRING students (that is, rural ,economically disadvantaged
students identified as gifted using comprehensive
identification measures) performed significantly lower both
before and after identification and intervention than
traditionally identified gifted students in the same school
system on standardized aptitude tests, achievement tests, and
verbal creativity tests, they did not differ from them on
creative writing or the nonverbal creativity tests.
Fall 2007 Page 2
 Additionally, SPRING students did not differ from
traditionally identified gifted students on measures of self-
concept either before or after the SPRING intervention.
A second external evaluation carried out when SPRING
students were in the 8th or 9th grade showed standardized
achievement and intelligence scores for SPRING students
generally dropped relative to age or grade norms during
SPRING II, falling closer to the national or state mean on the
tests. Overall gains in self-concept were statistically significant
from the pretest at 4th grade to the posttest at the end of 8th
grade.
While the results of these external evaluations suggest
possible identification procedures to increase the
representation of economically disadvantaged rural students
in gifted programs, they also raise questions about the extent
to which comprehensive identification correctly identifies
gifted and talented, economically disadvantaged, rural
students and the long-term effects of such identification.
Objectives
The goal of the current study is to identify factors which
might influence the long-term effects of alternative
identification and curriculum interventions with economically
disadvantaged, rural, gifted students. More specifically, the
objectives of the study are: (1) to determine if, at the end of
high school, the academic achievements, self-concepts, and
aspirations of students alternatively identified as gifted
(SPRING) differ from students identified by more traditional
approaches (GT) and from students never identified as gifted
(Non- GT); (2) to identify factors which may influence
individual differences in outcomes (achievement, self-concept,
and aspirations) for students identified by these different
approaches. The findings of this study have the potential to
provide information of value to other efforts to provide
alternative identification and intervention approaches, as well
as attempts to assess such programs.
Methodology
The researcher met with all students in the 10th and 11th
grades during their English classes at the two high schools in
the SPRING participating districts, and explained that the
purpose of the study was to gain information about the
academic differences and differences in career ambitions of
students who reside in rural communities.
Data Collection
Data collection with students at each school took place on the
same day. All students were able to complete the assessments
within the specified time. The researcher also collected
cumulative records information on students participating in
the study. Data were recorded on grades, science and math
courses taken, class rank, diploma type received, as well as
scores for the PSAT and the SAT.
Pre-test data on self-concept, academic achievement test
scores, cognitive skills index, and anecdotal and descriptive
data were retrieved from Project SPRING I files.
Subjects
There were 28 Project SPRING students, 25 traditionally
identified gifted students (GT) and 53 regular students
(NonGT).
Gifted Children Volume 2 Number 1
Over two-thirds of subjects (71.6 percent) were female (Spring
68%; GT 60%; NonGT 80%).
Instruments
Piers-Harris Self-Concept Scale for Children
The Piers-Harris Children’s Self-Concept Scale (Piers &
Harris, 1969) is a published self-report questionnaire
developed for students in grades 4 through 12. There are six
cluster scales, each yielding a score; Behavior (16 items),
Intellectual and School Status (17 items), Physical Appearance
and Attributes (13 items), Anxiety (14 items), Popularity (12
items), Happiness and Satisfaction (10 items), plus a total
score. Only the total scores were used in the data analyses.
The Piers-Harris Children’s Self-Concept Scale was used
again for this study because it had been utilized in SPRING I
when students were in 4th grade, thus providing for a pre-
and post- (11th grade) assessment of self-concept.
IDEAS (Interest Determination, Exploration and
Assessment System)
The IDEAS assessment (Johansson, 1996) is a short, self-scored
interest inventory designed to be used as an introduction to
career exploration for students and adults. The IDEAS
inventory is used with junior high, middle school, and early
high school students in conjunction with career programs and
guidance units in social studies courses.
Indiana Statewide Testing for Education Progress-Plus
The Indiana Statewide Testing for Educational Progress-Plus
(ISTEP+) (Indiana Department of Education, 2000-2001) is
administered to all Indiana public school students in grades 3
through 10. In this study, scores from grade 3 served as a
control measure and grade10 as the dependent variable. Total
battery scores were used for the data analyses.
Test of Cognitive Skills
The Test of Cognitive Skills (1985) is a group intelligence test
used to measure the abilities needed to acquire the desired
cognitive outcomes of formal education. The test has a mean
of 100 and a standard deviation of 16. The score indicates a
student’s overall cognitive ability, or academic aptitude,
relative to students of similar chronological age without
regard to grade placement.
High School Diploma
Indiana awards three diplomas to those graduating high
school. The type of diploma depends upon the academic
program of each student.
Academic Honors Diploma. To receive an Academic
Honors Diploma, one must have an overall B grade
point average and earn 47 credits (nine more than what
is needed for the regular diploma and seven credits
more than a Core 40 diploma) with a grade of C or
better.
Indiana Core 40. Core 40 is a single, flexible, high school
curriculum, which, except for elective courses, uses a
single set of agreed-upon competencies. These
competencies direct the content of both college prep and
tech prep courses.
General Diploma. Thirty-eight credits are necessary to
satisfy the general diploma requirement.
Fall 2007 Page 3
 Preliminary Scholastic Assessment Test
The Preliminary Scholastic Assessment Test (PSAT) is
published by The College Board as a tenth or eleventh grade
practice instrument for students taking the Scholastic
Assessment Test (SAT) in the eleventh and twelfth grades.
Scholastic Assessment Test
The Scholastic Assessment Test (SAT) is designed to measure
verbal and quantitative reasoning skills. SAT scores primarily
help forecast the college academic performance of individual
students. The composite SAT score (verbal + math) was used
for data analyses.
Math and Science Courses Completed
The number of math/science courses taken during high
school is a substantive indicator of college plans/intention for
higher education, and professional goals for the future. These
measures were compared across the three groups to identify
quantitative differences and confirm other data.
Research Questions
1. (a) Are the educational achievements of SPRING
students different from GT students and NonGT
students as they complete high school?
(b) Do these differences occur when initial
achievement differences are controlled?
2. Are the academic and career aspirations (as indicated
by the number of math and science courses students
completed) of SPRING students different from GT
students and NonGT students as they complete high
school?
3. (a) Is the self-concept of SPRING students different
from GT students and NonGT students at the 11th
grade?
(b) Do these differences occur when controlled for
initial differences in self-concept?
(c) Are differences among groups influenced by
gender and school attended?
Summary of Findings
Achievement and ability. Results showed that traditional GT
students surpassed SPRING students and NonGT students on
all academic and ability outcome measures. When controlling
for initial achievement, these differences were maintained at
about the same level of significance in favor of the GT group
but accounted for a smaller proportion of variance.
Academic and career aspirations. SPRING and NonGT students
were found to take fewer math and science courses than the
GT students, even controlling for initial achievement.
However, while a significantly higher percentage of GT than
SPRING students took college entrance exams and went on to
college, significant differences were not found between GT
and NonGT students on these measures. When career
interests were assessed, the three groups did not differ on the
Investigative Theme. However, when gender was controlled,
SPRING students scored significantly higher than GT
students did on the Realistic Theme.
Self-concept outcomes. There was a significant interaction
between the two high schools and identification for self-
Gifted Children Volume 2 Number 1
concept. SPRING students enrolled in School A had
significantly higher total self-concept scores than both GT and
NonGT students, whereas, at School B, GT and SPRING
students had significantly higher total self-concept scores than
NonGT students. No similar interactions existed on pretest
self-concept scores. When the six individual self-concept
clusters were analyzed using a two-way ANOVA (school,
identification), significant interactions were found on four of
the clusters. In all cases, GT students scored much higher in
School B than School A. SPRING students scored high in both
schools, NonGT students scored especially low in School B.
Self-concept as predictor. When pretest self-concept was used to
predict high school academic achievement and ability
outcomes and career aspirations, no significant correlations
were found.
Conclusions
This study was a follow-up of students who were identified in
the fourth grade as potentially gifted (Project SPRING) using
comprehensive assessments. While curriculum interventions
occurred in the elementary school, and continued in one
content area through the first year of high school, this early
and intermediate intervention was not consistently
implemented. To effect a positive change in the academic
achievement and aspiration outcomes of rural, economically
disadvantaged, gifted children, the findings of this study
would suggest that when alternative identification is
employed, the curriculum intervention must be sufficiently
challenging and consistently implemented to mediate
between the expectations of school and the child’s early
experiences.
Rural students in general, but in particular rural, potentially
gifted students from economically disadvantaged
backgrounds, represent a unique population. On the one
hand, they may have the same academic and professional
aspirations as their more advantaged peers; on the other
hand, they lack the economic resources, social capital, and
parental support to realize their goals. The transitions from
elementary school to middle school and middle school to high
school can be crucial times for these students as they
transition to a more academically rigorous program.
Factors which may promote higher achievement outcomes for
rural, gifted, low socioeconomic students include:
A. Providing parents and students with information on
appropriate coursework to take to prepare for college, as
well as actively counseling students and parents.
B. Monitoring a student’s academic progress and offering
additional tutoring where necessary.
C. Maintaining regular contact with parents regarding
academic coursework and taking college entrance exams.
D. Screening for students who qualify for state-sponsored
scholarship programs, and assisting them and their
parents as they complete the necessary qualifying forms.
E. Developing and making available a simple checklist and
deadline of what students ought to do and when, i.e.,
register for PSAT and SAT, take appropriate courses,
apply for financial aid.
Fall 2007 Page 4
 F. Fostering and supporting local professional adults who are
in a position to mentor the economically disadvantaged
gifted student.
Developing appropriate and varied identification procedures
which are sensitive to the expression of giftedness in rural
populations from the different racial, ethnic, or cultural
groups is essential. This requires knowing the norms, values,
and community resources before embarking on determining
which techniques or strategies of identification are the most
efficacious. Such studies would be useful by laying the
groundwork for future, more specific research. As shown in
this study, the complexity of changing identification strategies
and curriculum interventions for non-traditional gifted
groups is more difficult, requiring further theoretical analyses
and follow-up. ™

References

Bernal, E.M. (1979). The education of the culturally different gifted. In A.H. Passow (Ed.), The gifted and the talented (pp. 395-400). Chicago:
National Society for the Study of Education.

Duncan, C.M., & Sweet, S. (1992). Introduction: Poverty in rural America. In C. M. Duncan (Ed.), Rural poverty in America (pp. xix-xxvii).
New York: Auburn House.
Ford, D.Y., Grantham, T.C., & Harris, J.J. (1996). Gifted education across cultures. Multicultural gifted education: A wakeup call to the
profession. Roeper Review, 19(2), 72-78.
Frasier, M.M. (1987). The identification of gifted black students: Developing new perspectives. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 10, 155-
189.

Indiana Department of Education. (2000-2001). Indiana Statewide Testing for Educational Progress (ISTEP): Program Manual Indianapolis, IN:
Indiana Department of Education.
Johansson, C.B. (1996). Career assessment inventory - The enhanced version. Minneapolis, MN: National Computer Systems. Cited in C.B.
Johansson, (1996), IDEAS: Interest Determination, Exploration and Assessment System Manual. Minneapolis, MN: National Computer
Systems, Inc.
Johansson, C.B. (1996). IDEAS: Interest Determination, Exploration and Assessment System Manual. Minneapolis, MN: National Computer
Systems, Inc.
Maker, C.J. (Ed.). (1986). Critical issues in gifted education: Defensible programs for the gifted. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). National Educational Longitudinal Study of 1988 (NELS). Washington, DC: Author.
Piers, E.V. (1984). Piers-Harris Children’s Self-concept Scale: Revised manual. Los Angeles, CA: Western Psychological Services.

Spicker, H.H., Breard, N., & Reyes, E.I. (1996). Final Report Project SPRING II Special Populations Rural Information Network for the Gifted.
(USDOE No. R206A20011). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
Spicker, H.H. (1993). Final Report Project SPRING Special Populations Rural Information Network for the Gifted (USDOE No. R206A00169).
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
Tonemah, S. (1987). Assessing American Indian gifted and talented students’ abilities. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 10(3), 181-194.

CONGRATULATIONS JOAN FREEMAN!

We are delighted to announce that Joan Freeman has been honored with
The Lifetime Achievement Award for 2007 from the British Psychological Society
This is an extraordinary honor in many ways, not least because Joan’s field of endeavor,
the promotion of gifts and talents, is not a priority for the society.
The award is to be presented formally at a gala dinner in Dublin in April 2008.

Gifted Children Volume 2 Number 1 Fall 2007 Page 5

Economic Arguments for Gifted Education
Pamela R. Clinkenbeard, Ph.D., Professor of Educational Foundations
at the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater
clinkenp@uww.edu
For the past several years I have been engaged in advocacy
efforts on behalf of gifted students at the national, state, and
local level. As the co-chair of the advocacy committee of my
state gifted association, I have spent much of my time
speaking to groups outside of gifted education about gifted
education. Most educators and researchers who are interested
in gifted children have a personal investment in the field and
its success. However, we must persuade policymakers who
are not in the field that investment in gifted education is
important. Assuming that economic development is the
primary education outcome of interest to governments at all
levels, how can we make the argument that gifted education
makes an economic difference, and what data can we employ
to strengthen that argument?
These questions guided my search for information as I
consulted the literature in gifted education, documents from
national think tanks from a variety of political perspectives,
Web sites of international entities such as the World Bank and
the European Union, and books on the economics of
education. I questioned colleagues on this topic through
various listservs, and I asked all the economists of my
acquaintance what kinds of outcome variables are generally
measured in research on the economic effects of education. I
was seeking both the rhetoric of persuasive economic
arguments for gifted and regular education, and some
empirical research outcomes.
The results of my search were presented in preliminary form
at the 2007 World Conference for Gifted and Talented
Children at The University of Warwick (Clinkenbeard, 2007).
Initially I had intended to present comparisons between
nations, but as my research progressed it became clear that
the same general “human capital” arguments were being
made in most of the countries and international organizations
I investigated (at least in the English language sources I was
reading). Following are a brief discussion of these arguments
for investing in education in general, some of the typical
individual and group variables measured in this research, and
suggestions for economic research that might be more directly
related to gifted education. It should be noted that my
searches so far have resulted in almost no existing data
specifically on the economic outcomes of gifted programs,
though there are some compelling policy arguments for gifted
education. For empirical outcomes there is a good model to
follow in the research on investment in early childhood.
“Human Capital” Research and Outcome Variables
As discussed in contemporary economic theory, “human
capital” denotes “…differences among individuals that relate
directly to observable outcomes—earnings, health, and even
political participation” (Hanushek, 2003, p. ix). The World Bank
Web site (www.worldbank.org) refers to human capital
repeatedly in the context of investing in people and their ability
Gifted Children Volume 2 Number 1
to be economically productive. Human capital may include
both intellectual (knowledge and skills) and social (background
and networks) capital. According to Becker (2002), over 70% of
the capital in the U.S. is human (the rest is physical or financial
capital). The general economic argument for education is that
“The economic success of individuals, and also of whole
economies, depends on how extensively and effectively people
invest in themselves” (Becker, 2002, p. 3).
How is this effectiveness measured? In research on the
economic outcomes of education, there are individual benefits
and group (societal) benefits (Hanushek, 2003). The most
typical individual outcome variable measured is income:
annual salary or lifetime earnings. Individuals who have more
years of education, or who have received higher quality
education, make more money. Other individual variables
such as greater perceived status and higher academic
performance are sometimes measured, but the discussion is
still often related to greater income. More important for
advocacy purposes are the variables pertaining to societal or
aggregate benefits. These typically include higher income tax
revenues and greater Gross Domestic Product (GDP) or other
measures of economic competitiveness such as productivity
per worker (Barro, 2002). Some studies also estimate the
savings in costs related to crime and incarceration (Lynch,
2004). Among groups in education, early childhood
researchers have taken a strong and sustained approach to
demonstrating the economic and social benefits of investing
in young children (Lynch, 2004). Using some research
methods from economics, evaluations of well-known
programs such as Head Start and the Perry Preschool Project
have estimated the return on investment in early childhood
development programs, particularly for children of poverty.
Various programs and researchers have measured or
estimated a wide variety of outcome variables related to
individual success and the economy: increases in adult
income, tax revenues, solvency of Social Security, and global
competitiveness; and decreases in costs related to special
education, crime, and welfare (Lynch, 2004). Similar research
could be done, but generally has not been conducted, on
behalf of gifted education.
Arguments for Gifted Education
More recent research on the economics of education focuses
not just on years of education, but also the quality of
education (Hanushek, 2003). The emphasis on quality is often
framed in a way that indirectly relates to gifted education: for
example, the recent “Tough Choices” report (National Center
on Education and the Economy, 2006) uses international
comparisons to propose that the majority of U.S. students
could and should be doing college-level work by age 16.
Research on the academic outcomes of higher quality
education, such as greater achievement in school and later job
performance, are generally interpreted as contributing to
Fall 2007 Page 6
 global competitiveness in a knowledge economy. “Brain estimate of his own based on the federal definition of
drain” arguments abound in local, state, and federal giftedness and the estimated number of gifted students in the
discussions of economic development. country. The Templeton report (Colangelo et al., 2004) notes
the economic benefits accruing to various forms of
Although there is little economic data on the impact of gifted
acceleration: parents save on college tuition through
education, there are compelling policy arguments for the
Advanced Placement courses, the tax base is increased with
economic importance of gifted programs and services.
more years of productive work per gifted student, and schools
Gallagher (2002) has long discussed the opportunity cost of
can save on education costs. In my World Conference
public policy that ignores gifted education. Renzulli (2002)
audience, attendees noted that in some countries the cost
discusses social capital, defined as an awareness and sense of
savings due to the acceleration of students is given back to
responsibility for the world, as an important proposed
gifted program budgets.
outcome of gifted education. (For a discussion of the
intellectual history and educational correlates of “social Conclusions
capital,” see Dika & Singh [2002]). More specifically economic
It seems that in order to persuade policymakers of the
in tone, McCann (2005) uses a “natural resource” argument in
desirability of gifted education programs and services, we as a
discussing the Australian government’s investigations into
field need to improve our communication regarding the
the need to revive gifted education programs. Her discussion
prospective and actual economic benefits of gifted education.
includes an equity argument, based on the need to
Whether polishing our rhetoric or collecting economic
incorporate the talents of all segments of society in modern
outcome data, in an era of declining support for public
economies. Moltzen (2003) situates a discussion of improved
education we need to make a clear and compelling case for
gifted education in New Zealand within economic changes to
gifted education to other education groups, to business
the country: specifically, to the transformation of a subsidized
leaders, and to governmental entities. Some arenas in which
agriculture-based economy to a more diversified economy
to make these arguments include forums related to school
based on innovation and newer specialized skills.
funding reform and school finance adequacy studies, business
The arguments that have been made for acceleration are and workforce development roundtables, and conferences
perhaps the most explicitly economic. In a discussion of related to “brain drain,” equity and diversity, and economic
“utilitarian” perspectives of giftedness, Tannenbaum (1983) competitiveness. I will be collecting sources and ideas over
cited Lorge’s estimate of the savings in “man years of the next year and would appreciate any comments or
productivity” per year of acceleration, and provided an suggestions regarding this line of inquiry. ™

References

Barro, R.J. (2002). Education as a determinant of economic growth. In E.P. Lazear (Ed.), Education in the twenty-first century. Stanford, CA:
Hoover Institution Press.
Becker, G.S. (2002). The age of human capital. In E.P. Lazear (Ed.), Education in the twenty-first century. Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution
Press.
Clinkenbeard, P.R. (August 2007). Economic arguments for gifted education: A preliminary global comparison. Paper presented at the biennial
conference of the World Council for Gifted and Talented Children, Coventry, UK.
Colangelo, N., Assouline, S.G., & Gross, M.U.M. (2004). A nation deceived: How schools hold back America's brightest students (Vol. 1 & 2).
Iowa City, IA: The University of Iowa.
Dika, S.L., & Singh, K. (2002). Applications of social capital in educational literature: A critical synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 72,
31-60.

Gallagher, J.J. (2002). Society’s role in educating gifted students: The role of public policy. Storrs, CT: The National Research Center on the Gifted
and Talented.
Hanushek, E.A. (2003). Understanding the economics of schools: An introduction. In E.A. Hanushek (Ed.), The economics of schooling and
school quality. Vol. 1: Labor markets, distribution and growth. Northampton, MA: Elgar.
Lynch, R.G. (2004). Exceptional returns: Economic, fiscal, and social benefits of investment in early childhood development. Washington, DC:
Economic Policy Institute.
McCann, M. (2005). Our greatest natural resource: Gifted education in Australia. Gifted Education International, 19, 90-106.
Moltzen, R. (2003). Gifted education in New Zealand. Gifted Education International, 18, 139-152.
National Center on Education and the Economy. (2006). Tough choices or tough times: The report of the new commission on the skills of the
American workforce. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Renzulli, J.S. (2002). Expanding the conception of giftedness to include co-cognitive traits and to promote social capital. Phi Delta Kappan,
84(1), 33-40 & 57-58.

Tannenbaum, A.J. (1983). Gifted children: Psychological and educational perspectives. New York: Macmillan.

Gifted Children Volume 2 Number 1 Fall 2007 Page 7

Project HOPE (Having Opportunities Promotes Excellence)
Funded by the Jack Kent Cooke Foundation
Jillian C. Gates, Marcia Gentry, Rebecca L. Mann, & Jean S. Peterson
jcgates@purdue.edu
Purdue University
In August 2007, The Gifted Education Resource Institute
(GERI) at Purdue University received a three-year, $600,000
grant from the Jack Kent Cooke Foundation. GERI will
implement Project HOPE (Having Opportunities Promotes
Excellence) in five area school districts in Indiana—two urban
and three rural—to provide students with Saturday and
summer enrichment experiences. Funding will also be used to
provide training to K-5 teachers and counselors on the
identification and counseling needs of lower-income, high-
achieving students, as well as parent workshops.
Founded in 1978 to encourage high-ability youth to develop
their talents to the fullest, the Gifted Education Resource
Institute (GERI) at Purdue University has a long and rich
history of providing successful student programs which
facilitate academic, career, social, and emotional development
of high-ability youth. Project HOPE seeks to expand
opportunities for culturally diverse and low-income high-
potential students by increasing access to GERI enrichment
programs, providing these children with educational
experiences similar to those in society who have more
advantages.
Literature Review
Students with exceptional academic potential who come from
poverty are frequently not identified, are under-identified, or
are misidentified for gifted and talented programs. When
identified, they often elect to drop out of programs (Bernal,
2007; Ford, 2007; Olszewski-Kubilius, Lee, Ngoi, & Ngoi,
2004; Worrell, 2007). African American, Latino/a, Native
American, and children from poverty are 5 to 10 times less
likely than their White middle-class or affluent counterparts
to be served in talent enrichment or gifted education
programs (Ford, 1998; Miller, 2004: U.S. Office of Civil Rights,
2002). Rural students also face challenges in pursuit of a
sound education: poverty rates are higher; residents have
lower levels of formal education; fewer youth aspire to
college; smaller tax bases often leave rural schools
underfunded and with fewer developmental opportunities;
lack of infrastructure and resources results in less technology;
and attracting high quality teachers is difficult (Bauch, 2001).
In 2005, Indiana gained the dubious distinction of having the
greatest increase in poverty of any Midwestern state since
2000 with a 63% increase (Joint Economic Committee, 2006).
Additionally, when compared to other U.S. states, Indiana
ranks 45th in the percentage of persons who have completed a
bachelor’s degree and 30th in the percentage of people who
have completed high school (U. S. Census Bureau, 2005). Like
the rest of Indiana, areas within commuting distance of
Purdue University have not only experienced an increase in
poverty levels, but also an increase in diversity of school
populations.
Gifted Children Volume 2 Number 1
The Grant
Professor Marcia Gentry will serve as Principal Investigator
(PI) for Project HOPE, overseeing the entire project, its
continuation, the assessment, and the research. Professor
Rebecca Mann will serve as co-PI for Project HOPE, focusing
on the professional development and student programming.
Professor Jean Peterson directs the School Counseling
Program at Purdue University and serves as an associated
faculty member of GERI. As co-PI she will coordinate the
development-oriented counseling activities for Project HOPE,
working with counselors, students, and families.
Research Goals
The following goals will guide Project HOPE:
1. develop procedures for recognizing ability and talent
among low-income children;
2. make it possible for these identified students to
participate in Super Saturday and Super Summer
programs at Purdue University by offering Project
HOPE-supplied full-tuition scholarships and
transportation;
3. develop follow-up services for high-potential
participants;
4. evaluate effects on students who participate in the
programs and effects on the identification of gifted
children from low-income families in the targeted
schools;
5. develop on-going sources of funding to sustain
program expansion at the conclusion of the project and
to facilitate long-term follow-up and study of Project
HOPE participants.
We will research the effects of Project HOPE participation on
student achievement in and attitudes toward their
home/school experiences. To do this we will gather extant
quantitative base-line data on participating students and track
repeated-measures achievement scores for these students for
the duration of the project. We will also use the My Class
Activities (MCA) (Gentry & Gable, 2001) to determine if
program participation affects student attitudes toward school
on variables that underlie student achievement. Specifically
for students in all five treatment schools we will collect grades
and ISTEP+ (Indiana Department of Education, 2006) scores.
Additionally, four out of the five districts all test children at
least twice a year (fall & spring) using the NWEA (2005). We
will use these scores to determine program impacts on
academic achievement over time for the participating
students. If qualified children exist who elect not to
participate in the program, we will use these children and
their scores as a comparison group to help draw inferences
Fall 2007 Page 8
 concerning program effects. Finally, analyses will be school enrichment is required to affect student achievement
conducted to address the question of “How much out-of- and attitudes?” ™

References

Bauch, P.A. (2001). School-community partnerships in rural schools: Leadership, renewal and a sense of place. Peabody Journal of Education,
76(2), 204-221.

Bernal, E.M. (2007). The plight of the culturally diverse student from poverty. In J. VanTassel-Baska & T. Stambaugh (Eds.), Overlooked
gems: A national perspective on low-income promising learners (pp. 63-37). Washington, DC: National Association of Gifted Children.
Ford, D.Y. (1998). The under-representation of minority students in gifted education: Problems and promises in recruitment and retention.
The Journal of Special Education, 32(1), 4-14.

Ford, D.Y. (2007). Diamonds in the rough: Recognizing and meeting the needs of gifted children from low SES backgrounds. In J.
VanTassel-Baska & T. Stambaugh (Eds.), Overlooked gems: A national perspective on low-income promising learners (pp. 63-37).
Washington, DC: National Association of Gifted Children.

Gentry, M., & Gable, R.K. (2001). From the students' perspective My Class Activities: An instrument for use in research and evaluation.
Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 24, 322-343.

Indiana Department of Education. (2006). ISTEP+ program manual. Indianapolis: Indiana Department of Education.
Joint Economic Committee. (2006). Poverty rate unchanged from 2004, but up since 2000. Economic Policy Brief. Washington, DC.
Miller, L.S. (2004). Promoting sustained growth in the representation of African Americans, Latinos, and Native Americans among top students in the
United States at all levels of the education system (RM04190). Storrs, CT: National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
Olszewski-Kubilius, P., Lee, S.Y., Ngoi, M., & Ngoi, D. (2004). Addressing the achievement gap between minority and non minority
children by increasing access to gifted programs. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 28(2), 127-158.
U.S. Office of Civil Rights. (2002). 2002 elementary and secondary civil rights compliance report. National and state projections. Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Civil Rights
United States Census Bureau. (2005). American Community Survey. Retrieved from
http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/GRTSelectServlet?ds_name=ACS_2005_EST_G00_ May 23, 2007.
Worrell, F.C. (2007). Identifying and including low-income learners in programs for the gifted and talented: Multiple complexities. In J.
VanTassel-Baska & T. Stambaugh (Eds.), Overlooked gems: A national perspective on low-income promising learners (pp. 63-37).
Washington, DC: National Association of Gifted Children.

Letter from the Editor, continued

And approaching the need for on-going supports from a different angle, Shirley Aamidor’s article gives us a
longitudinal follow-up to a study of gifted education in economically disadvantaged rural settings. Her findings
emphasize the importance of following up with supports for such students; it is not enough to identify them as gifted
and put them into programs for high-ability learners. Finally, we have a thoughtfully controversial piece by Pam
Clinkenbeard, raising the issue of economic viability, another topic that we in gifted education have avoided concerning
ourselves with historically, but that we are going to have to think about if the field is to survive.

Please tell me what you think about all this and more — what’s interesting, engaging, and controversial in your work
with high-ability learners, and what you’re learning or reading or thinking about investigating in your own research.

Finally, I want to say a huge thank you to our layout editor, Leigh Kupersmith. She is one of those people who makes a
collaborative effort an enormous pleasure — in all our interactions, I’ve found her thoughtful, funny, creative, positive,
and responsive, all in addition to her finely-honed expertise.

Looking forward to the ongoing dialogue with you all,

Dona Matthews, Ph.D.

Visiting Professor,
Department of Curriculum, Teaching, and Learning
Ontario Institute for Studies in Education of the University of Toronto
donamatthews@gmail.com

Gifted Children Volume 2 Number 1 Fall 2007 Page 9

Pathways to the Top: Scaffolding Success for Black and Latino Students
in — and Beyond — Academically Accelerated High School Environments
Holly Hertberg-Davis, Ph.D.
Carolyn Callahan, Ph.D.
University of Virginia
Introduction
In 2000, the National Task Force on Minority High
Achievement published Reaching the Top, a report highlighting
the under-representation of Black and Latino students in the
population of highest-achieving students at all levels of
schooling, including in accelerated Advanced Placement (AP)
courses and in college, regardless of socioeconomic status. This
report highlighted a chronic and long-standing problem
(Borland, 2004; Gandara, 2004; Miller, 2004). Because the
opportunity to experience college-level challenges while in
high school confers many long-term benefits to students,
ensuring successful participation of all ethnic and racial
groups in AP courses is essential to achieving educational
equity (see Hertberg-Davis, Callahan, & Kyburg, 2006).
Recent efforts by the College Board and the Federal
Government to rectify the problem (see, for example, U.S.
Department of Education, 2006) have resulted in a dramatic
increase in the participation of minority students in AP
courses, but this increase has not been echoed in the
percentage performing above the generally accepted passing
score of “3” on AP exams (College Board, 2005) —a score
which has been found to be correlated with later college
performance (Dougherty, Mellor, & Jian, 2006; Geiser and
Santelices, 2004). While, in 2004, 65% of AP exams taken by
White students received a score of 3 or higher, only 32% of AP
exams taken by Black students received a 3 or higher (College
Board, 2005). These findings suggest that AP courses may not
provide the same benefits to Black and Latino students as they
provide to middle- and upper-middle class White students.
Some research indicates that providing Black and Latino
students with formal supports during high school (e.g., lunch
groups, study groups, and pre-AP courses) contributes to
increased participation and success in AP courses (e.g.,
Beitler, 2004; Guthrie & Guthrie, 2001). However, the long-
term impact of these support structures on students’ feelings
of preparedness for and performance within college courses
has not been researched. Furthermore, no studies have
focused on case histories of Black and Latino students who
have been high-achievers in AP and college courses to
identify common factors contributing to their high
achievement.
The Study
In an attempt to fill these gaps in the literature, a one-year
study is underway at the University of Virginia through a
grant from the University of Iowa’s Belin-Blank Center. The
study is exploring the following research questions: To what
extent do formal support structures for minority students
taking accelerated high school courses impact the success of
these students within AP courses and, subsequently, in
Gifted Children Volume 2 Number 1
college? Beyond these support structures, what are common
factors in the case histories of high-achieving Black and Latino
students that pave the pathways to academic success in AP
and college courses?
Methods
Sample and Data Collection: Stage 1. Three high schools with
formal structures to support minority participation and
success in AP courses (e.g., weekly lunch groups, pre-AP
programs, study groups) have been identified (hereafter
called “AP Support Schools”), along with three high schools
that are similar in student demographics, urbanicity, and
school size to the AP Support Schools, but that do not provide
formal AP support (hereafter called “No AP Support
Schools”).
We are currently in the process of recruiting a sample of 30
Black and Latino students who took AP courses, graduated
from the six selected high schools, and who are currently in
their second year of college. Five graduates from each AP
Support School and each No AP Support School will be
selected for further case study. Student selection will be
purposeful to ensure equal representation in each group of
gender, ethnicity, parent education level, and selectiveness of
college attended.
All participants will complete a questionnaire containing
short-answer and open-ended questions via SurveyMonkey,
an on-line survey tool, probing students’ experiences and
performance in AP and college courses and feelings of
preparedness for college. Survey questions were constructed
based on a review of the literature, and the survey has been
field-tested using a sample of 10 Latino and African American
former AP students who are now in their second year of
college. Revisions have been made to the survey based upon
the field test results. After the survey is administered,
multiple follow-up telephone interviews will be conducted to
clarify questions and obtain complete, rich data.
Sample and Data Collection: Stage 2. A sub-sample of students
will be chosen from the larger sample of 30 to develop case
histories of high-achieving Black and Latino students.
Students from the larger sample with a history of high
achievement in AP courses (score of 4 or 5 on at least one AP
exam) and college courses (G.P.A. of at least 3.0) will be
selected for the sub-sample. Interviews with the sub-sample
of high-achieving students will be more in-depth and
expansive to allow for development of case histories on each
student. Interview data for both the larger sample and sub-
sample will be collected until data saturation is reached.
Fall 2007 Page 10
 Data Analysis. Qualitative survey and interview data will be
analyzed using the Constant Comparative Method as
described in Strauss & Corbin (1998) to determine whether —
and to what extent—support structures impact Black and
Latino students’ experiences in AP courses and subsequent
feelings of preparedness for college. Data from each student
will first be analyzed separately to build rich, descriptive,
independent case studies and to probe the uniqueness of each
student’s experience. The case studies of graduates of AP
Support Schools will then be examined to determine common
patterns and themes. Case studies of graduates of No AP
Support Schools will be analyzed similarly. Finally, patterns
across groups will be compared for common and unique
themes. Case histories of the sub-sample of high-achieving
students will be developed and compared to illuminate
common and unique factors contributing to these students’
successful participation in AP courses and subsequent college
environments.
Conclusion
The gap between Black and Latino students and their White
peers at the highest levels of academic achievement is a
serious and chronic problem. By delineating the specific
supports for and barriers to high-achievement for minority
students in our most challenging high school courses and
beyond, we can begin to inform policy and practice as
schools, state departments, and the federal government
develop and fund AP programs for minority students. ™

References
Beitler, A. (2004, December). Making this team. Principal Leadership, 5(4), 16-21.

Borland, J.H. (2004). Issues and practices in the identification and education of gifted students from under-represented groups (RM04186). Storrs,
CT: The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut.
College Board. (2005). National summary report 2004. Retrieved March 29, 2005, from
http://www.collegeboard.com/student/testing/ap/exgrd_sum/2004.html
Dougherty, C., Mellor, L., & Jian, S. (2006). The relationship between Advanced Placement and college graduation. Austin, TX: National Center
for Educational Accountability.
Gandara, P.C. (2004). Latino achievement: Identifying models that foster success. (RM04194) Storrs, CT: National Research Center on the Gifted
and Talented, University of Connecticut.
Geiser, S., & Santelices, V. (2004). The role of Advanced Placement and Honors courses in college admissions. Berkeley: University of California,
Berkeley.
Guthrie, L.F., & Guthrie, G.P. (2001). Longitudinal research on AVID, 1999-2000; 2000-2001. Burlingame, CA: Center for Research, Evaluation
and Training in Education.

Hertberg-Davis, H., Callahan, C.M., & Kyburg, R.M. (2006). Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate programs: A "fit" for gifted
learners? (RM06222). Storrs, CT: The National Research Center of the Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut.
Miller, L.S. (2004). Promoting sustained growth in the representation of African Americans, Latinos, and Native Americans among top students in the
United States at all levels of the education system. (RM04190) Storrs, CT: National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented,
University of Connecticut.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.

U.S. Department of Education - Press Release (February 6, 2006). Fiscal year 2007 budget request advances NCLB implementation and pinpoints
competitiveness. Accessed on November 10, 2006, from http://www.ed.gov/news/pressreleases/2006/02/02062006.html

CONGRATULATIONS to GRADUATE STUDENTS

JILIAN GATES OF PURDUE UNIVERSITY

AND
JANE JARVIS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA!

WHO SHARE THE HONOR OF OVERALL BEST SUBMISSION AT THE

2ND ANNUAL GRADUATE STUDENT RESEARCH GALA

Gifted Children Volume 2 Number 1 Fall 2007 Page 11

Assessing the Impact of a Proposed Rule Change on the Identification of Gifted
English Language Learners
Michael S. Matthews, Ph.D.
Gifted Education Program, Department of Special Education
The University of South Florida
matthews@tempest.coedu.usf.edu
How would Florida’s proposed change to a unitary gifted rule
affect gifted learners who are also classified as limited English
proficient? Data collected as part of a study now in progress
at the University of South Florida in Tampa offers some
sobering empirical input on the potential impact of this
change on these traditionally underserved gifted learners.
Because Florida is the fourth largest U.S. state in terms of K-12
population, changes implemented here may influence
educational policies in other states.
Florida’s current system for identification of gifted learners
has two tracks. Under this current rule, which has been in
effect in its present form since 2002, mainstream students
must meet an IQ requirement of 130 or higher. Alternative
criteria are allowed for students who are classified as limited
English proficient (LEP) or who are of low socioeconomic
status, as indicated by their eligibility for free or reduced-
price school lunch. Note that the LEP designation is being
changed to the less deficit-oriented term “English language
learner”, which is preferred; since LEP has been the official
term used in archival records, I use both terms in this article.
The current gifted rule allows Florida school districts to
design a plan for increasing the number of LEP or low-SES
students, known informally as ‘Plan B’ after its heading in the
state rule. Districts choosing to develop Plan B criteria may set
their own IQ cutoff for these two groups of learners, and may
include additional elements such as creativity and leadership
that are not given separate consideration in the criteria used
to identify mainstream gifted learners. Both plan options also
require a behavioral checklist of gifted indicators and
evidence of need for a special program, but in practice the IQ
cutoff is often the primary criterion in identification. The text
of both the current rule and the proposed revision are
available online from the Florida Department of State (2006).
The state rule allows districts to develop Plan B procedures,
but such plans no longer were mandated when race and
ethnicity were dropped from Plan B in the 2002 revision of the
gifted rule. Currently, 43 of Florida’s 67 districts have
developed Plan B documents. The remaining districts chose
not to develop a Plan B. At least two of the Plan B documents
currently in use do not require any minimum IQ score if other
criteria are met, while the remainder require minimum IQ
scores ranging from 110 to 118 (along with other evidence) to
qualify a low income or LEP learner for gifted services.
The proposed rule revision would identify learners for gifted
programs using IQ scores on a sliding scale together with
scores from the Florida Comprehensive Achievement Test
(FCAT), the state’s NCLB achievement test. Under the
revision, students with IQ scores at or above 130 would also
be required to demonstrate high performance on a
Gifted Children Volume 2 Number 1
standardized achievement test; this could be either a 4 or 5 on
the reading or math score of the FCAT, or a reading or math
score at the 85th percentile or higher on any nationally-
normed test. This change represents a departure from current
practice that likely will preclude the identification of
underachieving gifted learners. A five on the FCAT in either
reading or math would be required for students whose IQ
scores fell between 120 and 130, and no IQ score below 120
would qualify for gifted services.
There are some theoretical problems with using achievement
test results to determine giftedness. We know that gifted
students from disadvantaged backgrounds are best
identified early-on, as waiting until higher grades risks
losing these learners as more-advantaged peers show greater
academic growth. Furthermore, the ceiling on standardized
grade-level tests may not be high enough to identify gifted
learners. This is particularly a problem on state-level tests,
some of which appear to be getting easier every year (see
Matthews, 2006). Furthermore, the standardized testing
mandated by NCLB begins at third grade, potentially
leaving out students in grades K-2. The proposed gifted rule
addresses this by allowing “an above-average score on a
research-based reading assessment” (Florida Department of
State, 2006, ¶ 3.a.2). The proportion of English language
learners who would meet this criterion is unclear, but high
English reading ability would likely have kept a student
from being designated LEP in the first place.
For students who are learning the English language in school,
perhaps a more serious problem lies in the heavy language
demands that standardized achievement tests present. Florida
law recognizes this by allowing the LEP committee to exempt
students whose LEP classification date falls within one year of
the FCAT testing. We know that whether or not a person
speaks English has little bearing on their intelligence, and we
also know that LEP students who are tested are unlikely to
achieve the high levels of FCAT performance that the
proposed gifted rule would ask of them. A quick look at the
2007 FCAT results (see
http://www.fcatresults.com/demog/GetReport.aspx)
confirms this suspicion; while 8 percent of third and fourth
graders statewide scored in the highest of the five FCAT
proficiency levels in reading, just one percent of English
language learners obtained scores in this category. In grades
6-11, zero percent of English language learners statewide had
scores in achievement level five, while between two and
eleven percent of all students fell into this highest category in
reading achievement. This suggests that all English language
learners in grades 6 and higher could only be identified as
gifted if their IQ score was in the 130+ range, and only then if
they made a 4 on the FCAT assessment.
Fall 2007 Page 12
 Not having access to FCAT scores at the student level, I was screening cutoff that was in use when these scores were
curious to examine the question from another perspective. collected. Since three quarters of those screened met the IQ
What would the impact of raising the IQ score to a minimum 115 criterion for gifted program entry used in this district’s
of 120 have on the population of English language learners Plan B, the screening score could probably be set a bit lower to
determined eligible for gifted services? Table 1 shows the increase the number of LEP students referred for gifted
distribution of IQ scores for a population of elementary LEP evaluation without substantially increasing the proportion
students (N = 432) who were referred for possible placement tested who do not meet the 115+ placement criterion.
in the gifted program. Each of these students had obtained a
The same evidence suggests that implementing a statewide
score of at least 120 on a screening test, most commonly the K-
requirement for a minimum IQ score of 120 for all learners
BIT II, before being referred for an individual evaluation by
would substantially reduce the number of English language
the school psychologist.
learners found eligible for gifted programs in Florida. More
than one third (34.8%) of the English language learners
currently eligible for gifted services would no longer be
Table 1. IQ score distribution for LEP students considered gifted under the new proposed rule. When one
referred for possible gifted program placement
considers that an FCAT score of 5 would be required for the
IQ Score Range N % 120 minimum score to apply, and that an extremely low
proportion of ELL students achieve a score in this range, it
≤104 28 6.5
becomes apparent that we would miss many more gifted
105-109 23 5.3 English language learners if the new criteria were adopted; a
110-114 25 5.8 loss of half or even three quarters of the current population of
115-119 124 28.7
these diverse gifted learners would be likely. More than 250
individuals in this one district alone might no longer qualify
120-124 82 19.0 for gifted services, representing a loss of dozens of home
125-129 58 13.4 languages and myriad diverse perspectives. The loss of these
130-134 57 13.2 students would not only harm their educational achievement;
it also would diminish the experiences of mainstream gifted
135+ 35 8.1
learners, who would no longer be exposed to the perspectives
Note: Population mean = 121.1 these English language learners bring as peers in their gifted
classes.
There are several interesting things here. First, a criticism We all would like to be able to think that important
sometimes expressed by teachers in Florida schools is that educational decisions are made only after careful empirical
students identified under Plan B criteria somehow ‘do not study of the complex implications of these issues. However,
really belong’ in the gifted program. As these data make clear, the reality often is different; politically motivated changes
one in four of the students now identified under Plan B would often trump those based on reasoned analysis. As researchers
also be eligible under the 130 IQ standard applied to in gifted education, we have a responsibility to publicize our
mainstream gifted learners. work to the larger audience of legislators, district personnel,
Second, the majority of these students’ scores fall in the range and state education agencies whose decisions affect
of 115-119. This is probably consistent with some regression to education, and through education, our larger society. ™
the mean, which might be expected given the IQ 120

References

Florida Department of State. (2006). Rule: 6A-6.03019: Special instructional programs for students who are gifted. Florida Administrative
Weekly and Florida Administrative Code [online edition]. Tallahassee, FL: Author. Retrieved October 24, 2007, from
https://www.flrules.org/gateway/ruleNo.asp?ID=6A-6.03019

Matthews, M.S. (2006). Benefits and drawbacks of state-level assessments for gifted students: NCLB and standardized testing. Duke Gifted
Letter, 7(1) [electronic version]. Retrieved October 24, 2007, from http://www.dukegiftedletter.com/articles/vol7no1_tt.html

Data collection for this study was supported by a New Researcher Grant awarded by the University of South Florida. Technical assistance
provided by school district staff is also gratefully acknowledged.

Gifted Children Volume 2 Number 1 Fall 2007 Page 13

A Technology Based Resource for Challenging Gifted and Talented Students
Joseph S. Renzulli
Sally M. Reis
The University of Connecticut
“Differentiation” is the contemporary buzzword in
curriculum and instruction, but the reality is that most
teachers simply do not have the time necessary to do it well,
especially when it comes to finding advanced-level resources
for gifted students. Remarkable advances in instructional
communication technology (ICT) have now made is possible
to provide high levels of enrichment services to students who
have access to a computer and the Internet. The Renzulli
Learning System (RLS) is an Internet-based enrichment
program that is built on a high-end learning theory that
focuses on the development of creative productivity through
the application of knowledge rather than the mere acquisition
and storage of knowledge. The system, which is sponsored by
the University of Connecticut Research and Development
Corporation, is based on more than 30 years of research
dealing with student strength assessment and advanced-level
learning guided by the Enrichment Triad Model (Renzulli,
1977).
The Renzulli Learning System goes beyond the popular
“worksheets-on-line” or “courses-on-line” that, by and large,
have been early applications of ICT in most school situations.
These early applications have been based on the same
pedagogy that is regularly practiced in most traditional
teaching situations, thereby minimizing the role of the
Internet to a gigantic encyclopedia rather than a source of
information for first-hand investigative and creative
endeavors.
The Renzulli Learning System is a comprehensive program
that begins by providing a computer-generated profile of each
student’s academic strengths, interests, learning styles, and
preferred modes of expression. A search engine then matches
Internet resources to the student’s profile from fourteen
carefully screened databases that are categorized by subject
area, grade level, state curricular standards, and degree of
complexity. A management system called the Wizard Project
Maker guides students in the application of knowledge to
teacher- or student-selected assignments, independent
Reference
Renzulli, J. S. (1977). The Enrichment Triad Model: A guide for developing defensible programs for the gifted and talented. Mansfield Center, CT:
Creative Learning Press.
Gifted Children Volume 2 Number 1
research studies, or creative projects that individuals or small
groups would like to pursue. Students and teachers can
evaluate the quality of students’ products using a rubric
called The Student Product Assessment Form. Students can
rate each site visited, conduct a self-assessment of what they
have gained from the site, and place resources in their own
Total Talent Portfolio for future use. RLS also includes a
curriculum acceleration management system for high-
achieving students that is based on the many years of research
and widespread use of a curricular modification process
called Curriculum Compacting. Students and teachers can
use the RLS anytime and anywhere there is Internet access.
Teacher functions allow downloading of hundreds of
reproducible creativity and critical thinking activities as well
as numerous off-line resources for lesson planning and
curricular integration. Management functions allow teachers
to group students by interests and learning styles. The
management tools also allow teachers to place teacher-
selected resources in individual, whole class, or selected
students’ portfolios for classroom or special project use.
Teachers can oversee all students’ activity including where
and when students have been on-line using the RLS, projects
or assignments underway or completed, and areas where
curriculum has been compacted. The system can be used at
home and during summer, and parents can view their own
son or daughter’s work on the system. The principal or
designated project manager can also examine all activity
taking place in a given building or program. This feature
allows for accountability, system assessment, and guidance in
staff development and program planning needs.
Persons interested in examining the Renzulli Learning System
can tour the Web site at www.renzullilearning.com and
further descriptive information can be obtained at
info@renzullilearning.com. The RLS is being widely used by
school systems throughout the U.S. and in other countries. A
home-school and individual use version will be available in
2008. ™
Fall 2007 Page 14
Book Review
The Indigo Children: The New Kids Have Arrived
Lee Carroll and Jan Tober (Eds.)
Hay House Inc., California
Review by Joan Freeman
Middlesex University, London, UK
www.joanfreeman.com
Ever heard of Indigo children? No? Well, they are super-
duper, over-the-top, gifted and talented children. They are an
evolution in childhood, largely restricted to the USA, which
started sometime around the recent millennium—and have
never before been documented! It is easy to pour scorn on the
ideas expounded in this book edited by many Ph.D.’s and
famous authors of bestselling books (hmm). The chapters are
extremely short and do not tax the brain cells unduly. But
there is hardly a page which has not caused me at least one
raised eyebrow.
Typical behaviour of an Indigo child is as follows: “My wife
and I tell Nicholas aged two that we love him. Sometimes
he’ll tell us that he loves us back, but more often Nicholas will
agree with us, ‘I love me too’.” Signed by a dad (p.107).
Identification is also relatively simple if you are sensitive: you
can just look into their eyes and see what old souls they have.
Fortunately, the authors with their “very fine minds” provide
advice on how to help these “system buster” children. One of
the Ph.D.’s says, for example, “I’ve learned from my
conversations with God and the angels to take excellent care
of our bodies.” And much more (p.138). Not for vanity, she
insists, but to make us more receptive to divine guidance.
What would she have done without that angelic advice? We
also learn that directing children is OK for God but not for
parents. They must never direct their progeny because the
children know from birth who they are and where they are
going. It is perfectly all right to guide them gently, but
because the children are “smarter than you are” you will only
be causing them much frustration and distorting their healthy
development if you instruct them. This advice is quite
specific. Never ever, for example, expect them to join the
family business.
Gifted Children Volume 2 Number 1
Schools which can cope with Indigos are to be found all over
the world, where for example, “Students are honored, not the
system.” The Montessori system is one such. I imagine that
Maria, that down-to-earth doctor, would be a stout opponent
of the idea that the little ones under her system would be
taught how to be super-duper gifteds. But in the end, what is
going on in her name is not actually the Montessori Method.
There are sad chapters by people on the hardships of growing
up Indigo. It seems that other cruder folk just don’t give the
Indigo child the understanding and love they crave. The book
provides advice on how to distinguish Indigo from ADHD,
and how to sort out problems without Ritalin, which is now
lavishly prescribed across the Western World. In America, it is
estimated that between the ages of 5-19, 1 in 30 has a
prescription for Ritalin. But then, so many report this drug as
giving them peace and opening windows in their mental life
one would not wish to throw out the baby with the bathwater.
The book in no way convinced me that there is a brand new
version of a child called an Indigo. I did wonder, though,
about what makes the many authors tick. The examples given
are typical of bright and lively children experimenting in
making sense of the world. Love is strongly promoted, but if
you believe that these children have “a divine origin and
mission”, you may be inclined to stand back in awe. But then,
as another of the Ph.D.’s writes: “being alive is all about
gaining experience, there are no wrong choices since we
acquire wisdom no matter what we choose.” Candide, like
Elvis, is alive. It seems to me, though, that bright healthy
children need more than love, freedom, and “honor.” They
need clear structure and help in their growing up to provide
them with peace and happiness, and indeed success in life.
Children need parenting. ™
Fall 2007 Page 15
About the AERA RGT SIG

Purpose
The Research on Giftedness and Talent (RGT) Special Interest Group of the American Educational Research Association
(AERA) deals with research studies that focus on how giftedness and talent are developed and nurtured. The SIG
encourages both international and national studies involving qualitative and or quantitative methods in a wide variety
of topics: Conceptions, Models, Identification, Programs and Practices, Counseling, Creativity, Thinking Skills,
Disabilities, Parenting, and Diversity.

Dues: $10 (1 yr.) / $20 (2 yrs.) / Free for Graduate Students

For more information, or to join the SIG: http://www.aeragifted.org/
For information on the AERA Annual meeting: http://www.aera.net/meeting

NAGC 2007

Matthew Makel, Indiana University

The 54th Annual Meeting of the National Association for Gifted Children was held November 7-11th in Minneapolis. Our
gracious host volunteers proudly donned yellow fleece vests serving the dual purposes of identifying them as people who
could help as well as protecting them from the snow flurries that greeted conference attendees on Friday morning. With
themes such as 10,000 Ideas in the Land of 10,000 Lakes! and Igniting Ideas & Innovations in Gifted, this year’s conference
featured 350 breakout sessions ranging from the Neuroscience of Creativity and a discussion of online teacher education to
the 2nd Annual Graduate Student Research Gala. Graduate students Jillian Gates of Purdue University and Jane Jarvis from
the University of Virginia shared the honor of overall best submission for the gala.
The opening session and Saturday keynote address, given by Dean Keith Simonton and Robert Sternberg, respectively,
packed the house and were extremely well received. Moreover, NAGC President Del Siegle jokingly announced that he
had figured out how to get everyone to stay at the conference through noon on Sunday: schedule Minnesota favorite son
Garrison Keillor as the closing speaker. Keillor, who was clearly a crowd favorite, told his audience that he initially thought
he was speaking to the National Association of Gifted Children and planned to give an address on humility. Although he
humbly claimed to know nothing about giftedness or gifted research, he urged his listeners not to overlook the importance
of praising student dedication and hard work. Clearly Mr. Keillor does know a thing or two about educating students.
Attendance on Sunday was not limited to those yearning to return to Lake Woebegone. A standing room only audience
attended a whirlwind session providing an update on all the research conducted in the last five years by the National
Research Center on the Gifted and Talented given by Joe Renzulli, Sally Reis, Jean Gubbins, and Carolyn Callahan.
In 2008, NAGC will be held in Tampa, Florida, from October 30th through November 2nd.

CONGRATULATIONS JANE PIIRTO!

We are delighted to announce that Jane Piirto has been honored with the
Mensa Lifetime Achievement Award
for her work with gifted students and with teachers
and for her model that is recognized nationally and internationally.
A special issue of the Mensa Research Journal
will be devoted to seven of her scholarly articles in early 2008

Gifted Children Volume 2 Number 1 Fall 2007 Page 16

AERA SIG AERA SIG
Research on Giftedness and Talent Research on Giftedness and Talent
Officers Working Committees

Chair Constitutional Review Committee

Michael Pyryt Tarek Grantham (grantham@uga.edu)
mpyryt@ucalgary.ca (June 2006 -June 2008) Tonya Moon (tonya@virginia.edu)
Mary Rizza (mrizza@bgnet.bgsu.edu)
Chair Elect
Karen Rogers
Membership Committee
k.rogers@unsw.edu.au (June 2006-June 2008)
Carol Tieso (clties@wm.edu)
Secretary Betsy McCoach (betsy.mccoach@uconn.edu)
Marcia Gentry Bonnie Cramond (bcramond@uga.edu)
mgentry@insightbb.com (Term ends June 2008) Susannah Richards (susannahr@commongroup.net)
William Bart (bartx001@umn.edu)
Treasurer Jean Gubbins (ejean.gubbins@uconn.edu)
Catherine Brighton
brighton@virginia.edu (Term ends June 2008) Program Planning Committee
Carol Tieso (clties@wm.edu)
Program Chair
Carol Tieso (June 2007-June 2008) Cheryll Adams (cadams@bsu.edu)
clties@wm.edu Dona Matthews (donamatthews@gmail.com)

Assistant Program Chair Awards Committee

Dona Matthews (becomes program chair 2008-09) Catherine Brighton (brighton@virginia.edu)
donamatthews@gmail.com Cheryll Adams (cadams@bsu.edu)
Frank Worrell (frankc@berkeley.edu)
Members-at-Large Michael Matthews (matthews@coedu.usf.edu)
Catherine Little (Term ends June 2008)
catherine.little@uconn.edu Business Meeting Committee
Michael Matthews (Term ends June 2008) Betsy McCoach (betsy.mccoach@uconn.edu)
matthews@coedu.usf.edu Marcia Gentry (mgentry@insightbb.com)
David Lohman (Term ends June 2009)
david-lohman@uiowa.edu Publication Committee
Jane Piirto (Term ends June 2009) Del Siegle (del.siegle@uconn.edu)
jpiirto@ashland.edu Jonathan Plucker (jplucker@indiana.edu)
Dona Matthews (donamatthews@gmail.com)
Student Representative
Bronwyn MacFarlane (June 2006-June 2008)
bdmacf@wm.edu

Newsletter Editor
Jill Adelson (Term ends June 2009)
jill.adelson@uconn.edu

Webmaster
D. Betsy McCoach
betsy.mccoach@uconn.edu (June 2007-June 2008)

Past-Chair
Carolyn Callahan (June 2006-June 2008)
cmc@virginia.edu

GIFTED CHILDREN
An Electronic Journal of the AERA SIG Research on Giftedness and Talent.

AERA Special Interest Groups Web Site: http://www.aeragifted.org/