Professional Documents
Culture Documents
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
To identify children who demonstrate talent potential, economically disadvantaged, gifted children (Spicker, 1993,
educators and researchers have begun to use multiple- 1996). Also, documenting the efficacy of appropriate
measure assessments rather than the narrower approach instruments or processes to identify students from under-
traditionally used to identify children for academically gifted represented groups who show academic potential has not
programs, usually IQ or standardized achievement test scores. been fruitful due to lack of follow-up on students. In some
One impetus for this change is the concern that many groups cases, promising practices and alternative identification
of children are under-identified and therefore under- procedures have been discontinued because students
represented in gifted programs. Included in the under- identified through their use were not successful in gifted
represented population are children from specific racial, programs, which were designed for traditionally identified
ethnic, and cultural groups, e.g., African Americans (Ford, gifted students. Studies which have considered new or unique
Grantham, & Harris, 1996; Frasier, 1987); Hispanic students methods of identification have found it difficult to follow up
(Bernal, 1979); American Indians (Tonemah, 1987); children on the appropriate type of program intervention required to
who exhibit language differences or limitations; children from serve rural, economically disadvantaged students or to study
low socioeconomic status families (qualifying for poverty- the long-term effects of alternative identification on students
level support or free or reduced cost lunch); and children who as they proceed through the school system.
live in certain geographic areas (e.g., rural or inner-city areas,
Projects SPRING I and SPRING II
border communities, and reservations).
Beginning in 1990, Project SPRING (Special Populations Rural
The reality and limitations of many of the traditional
Information Network for the Gifted), one of sixteen projects
identification processes are, more often than not, at variance
funded under the Jacob Javits Gifted and Talented Education
with contemporary research and policy on identification.
Act of 1988, investigated the unique talents of rural,
Whereas appropriate practices may call for a
economically disadvantaged, gifted students. The project,
multidimensional approach, identification data are too
implemented in three rural school districts in southern
frequently collected from a single standardized measure and
Indiana, accomplished the following goals:
teacher nominations. While important in the identification of
some gifted children, traditional identification measures such 1. Identified strengths and weaknesses which
as group standardized aptitude and/or achievement tests characterize rural, economically disadvantaged, gifted
ought not be the sole criterion in the identification process. children.
When used as the initial screening instrument to define a pool
2. Developed procedures for identifying rural,
of gifted and talented candidates, standardized measures may
disadvantaged, gifted children.
under-identify or eliminate gifted and talented minority
students, including students from rural and inner city 3. Developed and demonstrated curricula and
economically disadvantaged backgrounds. intervention practices appropriate for rural,
economically disadvantaged, gifted students.
Standardized assessments and teacher nominations are
efficient and can be effective in identifying some gifted A continuation of Project SPRING I in two school districts
children, but are not always appropriate for identifying high followed-up those SPRING students identified in the fourth
ability children whose behavioral characteristics do not please grade, who were entering junior high school. The modified
their teachers, who perform poorly on tests, or, whose science provided appropriate educational programming for
academic achievement has been constrained because of students. Project SPRING II (1993-1996) concluded as students
limited experiences or opportunities. Identifying economically completed their first year of high school.
disadvantaged gifted children in rural areas must be
considered within the context of rural communities, rural Projects SPRING I & II: Findings
schooling, and within the context of the two social classes, An external evaluation collected data on students’ academic
“those who have control, and those who are vulnerable to that performance when students completed 5th or 6th grade. While
control, the haves and have-nots” (Duncan, 1992). The SPRING students (that is, rural ,economically disadvantaged
National Education Longitudinal Study (NCES, 1988) students identified as gifted using comprehensive
reported that only 9 percent of students in gifted and talented identification measures) performed significantly lower both
education programs were in the bottom quartile of family before and after identification and intervention than
income, while 47 percent of program participants were from traditionally identified gifted students in the same school
the top quartile in family income. While research concerning system on standardized aptitude tests, achievement tests, and
alternative assessment is reported in the literature (Bernal, verbal creativity tests, they did not differ from them on
1979; Frasier, 1987; Maker, 1986; Tonemah, 1987), these are creative writing or the nonverbal creativity tests.
somewhat dated, with only a few studies that focus on rural,
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.
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.
For the past several years I have been engaged in advocacy to be economically productive. Human capital may include
efforts on behalf of gifted students at the national, state, and both intellectual (knowledge and skills) and social (background
local level. As the co-chair of the advocacy committee of my and networks) capital. According to Becker (2002), over 70% of
state gifted association, I have spent much of my time the capital in the U.S. is human (the rest is physical or financial
speaking to groups outside of gifted education about gifted capital). The general economic argument for education is that
education. Most educators and researchers who are interested “The economic success of individuals, and also of whole
in gifted children have a personal investment in the field and economies, depends on how extensively and effectively people
its success. However, we must persuade policymakers who invest in themselves” (Becker, 2002, p. 3).
are not in the field that investment in gifted education is
How is this effectiveness measured? In research on the
important. Assuming that economic development is the
economic outcomes of education, there are individual benefits
primary education outcome of interest to governments at all
and group (societal) benefits (Hanushek, 2003). The most
levels, how can we make the argument that gifted education
typical individual outcome variable measured is income:
makes an economic difference, and what data can we employ
annual salary or lifetime earnings. Individuals who have more
to strengthen that argument?
years of education, or who have received higher quality
These questions guided my search for information as I education, make more money. Other individual variables
consulted the literature in gifted education, documents from such as greater perceived status and higher academic
national think tanks from a variety of political perspectives, performance are sometimes measured, but the discussion is
Web sites of international entities such as the World Bank and still often related to greater income. More important for
the European Union, and books on the economics of advocacy purposes are the variables pertaining to societal or
education. I questioned colleagues on this topic through aggregate benefits. These typically include higher income tax
various listservs, and I asked all the economists of my revenues and greater Gross Domestic Product (GDP) or other
acquaintance what kinds of outcome variables are generally measures of economic competitiveness such as productivity
measured in research on the economic effects of education. I per worker (Barro, 2002). Some studies also estimate the
was seeking both the rhetoric of persuasive economic savings in costs related to crime and incarceration (Lynch,
arguments for gifted and regular education, and some 2004). Among groups in education, early childhood
empirical research outcomes. researchers have taken a strong and sustained approach to
demonstrating the economic and social benefits of investing
The results of my search were presented in preliminary form
in young children (Lynch, 2004). Using some research
at the 2007 World Conference for Gifted and Talented
methods from economics, evaluations of well-known
Children at The University of Warwick (Clinkenbeard, 2007).
programs such as Head Start and the Perry Preschool Project
Initially I had intended to present comparisons between
have estimated the return on investment in early childhood
nations, but as my research progressed it became clear that
development programs, particularly for children of poverty.
the same general “human capital” arguments were being
Various programs and researchers have measured or
made in most of the countries and international organizations
estimated a wide variety of outcome variables related to
I investigated (at least in the English language sources I was
individual success and the economy: increases in adult
reading). Following are a brief discussion of these arguments
income, tax revenues, solvency of Social Security, and global
for investing in education in general, some of the typical
competitiveness; and decreases in costs related to special
individual and group variables measured in this research, and
education, crime, and welfare (Lynch, 2004). Similar research
suggestions for economic research that might be more directly
could be done, but generally has not been conducted, on
related to gifted education. It should be noted that my
behalf of gifted education.
searches so far have resulted in almost no existing data
specifically on the economic outcomes of gifted programs, Arguments for Gifted Education
though there are some compelling policy arguments for gifted
More recent research on the economics of education focuses
education. For empirical outcomes there is a good model to
not just on years of education, but also the quality of
follow in the research on investment in early childhood.
education (Hanushek, 2003). The emphasis on quality is often
“Human Capital” Research and Outcome Variables framed in a way that indirectly relates to gifted education: for
example, the recent “Tough Choices” report (National Center
As discussed in contemporary economic theory, “human
on Education and the Economy, 2006) uses international
capital” denotes “…differences among individuals that relate
comparisons to propose that the majority of U.S. students
directly to observable outcomes—earnings, health, and even
could and should be doing college-level work by age 16.
political participation” (Hanushek, 2003, p. ix). The World Bank
Research on the academic outcomes of higher quality
Web site (www.worldbank.org) refers to human capital
education, such as greater achievement in school and later job
repeatedly in the context of investing in people and their ability
performance, are generally interpreted as contributing to
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.
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.
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.
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
How would Florida’s proposed change to a unitary gifted rule standardized achievement test; this could be either a 4 or 5 on
affect gifted learners who are also classified as limited English the reading or math score of the FCAT, or a reading or math
proficient? Data collected as part of a study now in progress score at the 85th percentile or higher on any nationally-
at the University of South Florida in Tampa offers some normed test. This change represents a departure from current
sobering empirical input on the potential impact of this practice that likely will preclude the identification of
change on these traditionally underserved gifted learners. underachieving gifted learners. A five on the FCAT in either
Because Florida is the fourth largest U.S. state in terms of K-12 reading or math would be required for students whose IQ
population, changes implemented here may influence scores fell between 120 and 130, and no IQ score below 120
educational policies in other states. would qualify for gifted services.
Florida’s current system for identification of gifted learners There are some theoretical problems with using achievement
has two tracks. Under this current rule, which has been in test results to determine giftedness. We know that gifted
effect in its present form since 2002, mainstream students students from disadvantaged backgrounds are best
must meet an IQ requirement of 130 or higher. Alternative identified early-on, as waiting until higher grades risks
criteria are allowed for students who are classified as limited losing these learners as more-advantaged peers show greater
English proficient (LEP) or who are of low socioeconomic academic growth. Furthermore, the ceiling on standardized
status, as indicated by their eligibility for free or reduced- grade-level tests may not be high enough to identify gifted
price school lunch. Note that the LEP designation is being learners. This is particularly a problem on state-level tests,
changed to the less deficit-oriented term “English language some of which appear to be getting easier every year (see
learner”, which is preferred; since LEP has been the official Matthews, 2006). Furthermore, the standardized testing
term used in archival records, I use both terms in this article. mandated by NCLB begins at third grade, potentially
leaving out students in grades K-2. The proposed gifted rule
The current gifted rule allows Florida school districts to
addresses this by allowing “an above-average score on a
design a plan for increasing the number of LEP or low-SES
research-based reading assessment” (Florida Department of
students, known informally as ‘Plan B’ after its heading in the
State, 2006, ¶ 3.a.2). The proportion of English language
state rule. Districts choosing to develop Plan B criteria may set
learners who would meet this criterion is unclear, but high
their own IQ cutoff for these two groups of learners, and may
English reading ability would likely have kept a student
include additional elements such as creativity and leadership
from being designated LEP in the first place.
that are not given separate consideration in the criteria used
to identify mainstream gifted learners. Both plan options also For students who are learning the English language in school,
require a behavioral checklist of gifted indicators and perhaps a more serious problem lies in the heavy language
evidence of need for a special program, but in practice the IQ demands that standardized achievement tests present. Florida
cutoff is often the primary criterion in identification. The text law recognizes this by allowing the LEP committee to exempt
of both the current rule and the proposed revision are students whose LEP classification date falls within one year of
available online from the Florida Department of State (2006). the FCAT testing. We know that whether or not a person
speaks English has little bearing on their intelligence, and we
The state rule allows districts to develop Plan B procedures,
also know that LEP students who are tested are unlikely to
but such plans no longer were mandated when race and
achieve the high levels of FCAT performance that the
ethnicity were dropped from Plan B in the 2002 revision of the
proposed gifted rule would ask of them. A quick look at the
gifted rule. Currently, 43 of Florida’s 67 districts have
2007 FCAT results (see
developed Plan B documents. The remaining districts chose
http://www.fcatresults.com/demog/GetReport.aspx)
not to develop a Plan B. At least two of the Plan B documents
confirms this suspicion; while 8 percent of third and fourth
currently in use do not require any minimum IQ score if other
graders statewide scored in the highest of the five FCAT
criteria are met, while the remainder require minimum IQ
proficiency levels in reading, just one percent of English
scores ranging from 110 to 118 (along with other evidence) to
language learners obtained scores in this category. In grades
qualify a low income or LEP learner for gifted services.
6-11, zero percent of English language learners statewide had
The proposed rule revision would identify learners for gifted scores in achievement level five, while between two and
programs using IQ scores on a sliding scale together with eleven percent of all students fell into this highest category in
scores from the Florida Comprehensive Achievement Test reading achievement. This suggests that all English language
(FCAT), the state’s NCLB achievement test. Under the learners in grades 6 and higher could only be identified as
revision, students with IQ scores at or above 130 would also gifted if their IQ score was in the 130+ range, and only then if
be required to demonstrate high performance on a they made a 4 on the FCAT assessment.
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.
Joseph S. Renzulli
Sally M. Reis
The University of Connecticut
“Differentiation” is the contemporary buzzword in research studies, or creative projects that individuals or small
curriculum and instruction, but the reality is that most groups would like to pursue. Students and teachers can
teachers simply do not have the time necessary to do it well, evaluate the quality of students’ products using a rubric
especially when it comes to finding advanced-level resources called The Student Product Assessment Form. Students can
for gifted students. Remarkable advances in instructional rate each site visited, conduct a self-assessment of what they
communication technology (ICT) have now made is possible have gained from the site, and place resources in their own
to provide high levels of enrichment services to students who Total Talent Portfolio for future use. RLS also includes a
have access to a computer and the Internet. The Renzulli curriculum acceleration management system for high-
Learning System (RLS) is an Internet-based enrichment achieving students that is based on the many years of research
program that is built on a high-end learning theory that and widespread use of a curricular modification process
focuses on the development of creative productivity through called Curriculum Compacting. Students and teachers can
the application of knowledge rather than the mere acquisition use the RLS anytime and anywhere there is Internet access.
and storage of knowledge. The system, which is sponsored by
Teacher functions allow downloading of hundreds of
the University of Connecticut Research and Development
reproducible creativity and critical thinking activities as well
Corporation, is based on more than 30 years of research
as numerous off-line resources for lesson planning and
dealing with student strength assessment and advanced-level
curricular integration. Management functions allow teachers
learning guided by the Enrichment Triad Model (Renzulli,
to group students by interests and learning styles. The
1977).
management tools also allow teachers to place teacher-
The Renzulli Learning System goes beyond the popular selected resources in individual, whole class, or selected
“worksheets-on-line” or “courses-on-line” that, by and large, students’ portfolios for classroom or special project use.
have been early applications of ICT in most school situations. Teachers can oversee all students’ activity including where
These early applications have been based on the same and when students have been on-line using the RLS, projects
pedagogy that is regularly practiced in most traditional or assignments underway or completed, and areas where
teaching situations, thereby minimizing the role of the curriculum has been compacted. The system can be used at
Internet to a gigantic encyclopedia rather than a source of home and during summer, and parents can view their own
information for first-hand investigative and creative son or daughter’s work on the system. The principal or
endeavors. designated project manager can also examine all activity
taking place in a given building or program. This feature
The Renzulli Learning System is a comprehensive program
allows for accountability, system assessment, and guidance in
that begins by providing a computer-generated profile of each
staff development and program planning needs.
student’s academic strengths, interests, learning styles, and
preferred modes of expression. A search engine then matches Persons interested in examining the Renzulli Learning System
Internet resources to the student’s profile from fourteen can tour the Web site at www.renzullilearning.com and
carefully screened databases that are categorized by subject further descriptive information can be obtained at
area, grade level, state curricular standards, and degree of info@renzullilearning.com. The RLS is being widely used by
complexity. A management system called the Wizard Project school systems throughout the U.S. and in other countries. A
Maker guides students in the application of knowledge to home-school and individual use version will be available in
teacher- or student-selected assignments, independent 2008.
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.
Ever heard of Indigo children? No? Well, they are super- Schools which can cope with Indigos are to be found all over
duper, over-the-top, gifted and talented children. They are an the world, where for example, “Students are honored, not the
evolution in childhood, largely restricted to the USA, which system.” The Montessori system is one such. I imagine that
started sometime around the recent millennium—and have Maria, that down-to-earth doctor, would be a stout opponent
never before been documented! It is easy to pour scorn on the of the idea that the little ones under her system would be
ideas expounded in this book edited by many Ph.D.’s and taught how to be super-duper gifteds. But in the end, what is
famous authors of bestselling books (hmm). The chapters are going on in her name is not actually the Montessori Method.
extremely short and do not tax the brain cells unduly. But
There are sad chapters by people on the hardships of growing
there is hardly a page which has not caused me at least one
up Indigo. It seems that other cruder folk just don’t give the
raised eyebrow.
Indigo child the understanding and love they crave. The book
Typical behaviour of an Indigo child is as follows: “My wife provides advice on how to distinguish Indigo from ADHD,
and I tell Nicholas aged two that we love him. Sometimes and how to sort out problems without Ritalin, which is now
he’ll tell us that he loves us back, but more often Nicholas will lavishly prescribed across the Western World. In America, it is
agree with us, ‘I love me too’.” Signed by a dad (p.107). estimated that between the ages of 5-19, 1 in 30 has a
Identification is also relatively simple if you are sensitive: you prescription for Ritalin. But then, so many report this drug as
can just look into their eyes and see what old souls they have. giving them peace and opening windows in their mental life
one would not wish to throw out the baby with the bathwater.
Fortunately, the authors with their “very fine minds” provide
advice on how to help these “system buster” children. One of The book in no way convinced me that there is a brand new
the Ph.D.’s says, for example, “I’ve learned from my version of a child called an Indigo. I did wonder, though,
conversations with God and the angels to take excellent care about what makes the many authors tick. The examples given
of our bodies.” And much more (p.138). Not for vanity, she are typical of bright and lively children experimenting in
insists, but to make us more receptive to divine guidance. making sense of the world. Love is strongly promoted, but if
What would she have done without that angelic advice? We you believe that these children have “a divine origin and
also learn that directing children is OK for God but not for mission”, you may be inclined to stand back in awe. But then,
parents. They must never direct their progeny because the as another of the Ph.D.’s writes: “being alive is all about
children know from birth who they are and where they are gaining experience, there are no wrong choices since we
going. It is perfectly all right to guide them gently, but acquire wisdom no matter what we choose.” Candide, like
because the children are “smarter than you are” you will only Elvis, is alive. It seems to me, though, that bright healthy
be causing them much frustration and distorting their healthy children need more than love, freedom, and “honor.” They
development if you instruct them. This advice is quite need clear structure and help in their growing up to provide
specific. Never ever, for example, expect them to join the them with peace and happiness, and indeed success in life.
family business. Children need parenting.
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.
NAGC 2007
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.
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
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.