www.mnegt.org
Voice
Challenging Gifted Learners
Winter 2013-2014
MINNESOTA EDUCATORS OF THE GIFTED AND TALENTED
Using Decision-Making Strategies to Analyze the Cases Christine L. Weber, Ph.D, Cecelia Boswell, Ed.D, Wendy Behrens. Exploring Critical Issues in Gifted Education: A Case Studies Approach. Prufrock Press, 2013
To best prepare educators to work with gifted and talented students, Exploring Critical Issues in Gifted Education: A Case Studies Approach presents problem-based scenarios that explore authentic situations found in K-12 classrooms. The following is the first chapter that introduces the best practices in using case studies in professional development opportunities.
What Are the Components of the Problem-Based Case Study and How Will They Be Used? The learning scenario presented in each case study provides an introduction, followed by a detailed narrative of a particular problem or set of issues within a dilemma related to educating gifted and talented students. Each scenario narrative encourages reflection on the key issue or issues. Using an organizer process from problem-based learning, adapted from the work of Finkle and Torp (1995) and discussed later in the chapter, the reader can begin to make decisions related to planning a course of action. The Things to Consider portion of each case provides the reader with essential information for careful consideration before making a decision. Suggested steps for “solving” a problem-based learning scenario are included and are typical of the “who, what, when, where, why, and to what extent” process taught to classroom students. The case studies encourage discussion and can be used in a variety of settings. They offer opportunities for role-playing different parts in the scenario and promote interviewing. When only a portion of the case is presented, readers may “interview” another student or the instructor to extract information. Written or take-home assignments are provided as well. It is important that the NAGC Pre-K–Grade 12 Programming Standards be considered when making decisions about implementing high quality services for gifted learners. The discussion questions, activities, and extensions encourage the reader to consider the impact of these standards on the case presented. continued on page 3
INSIDE this issue . . . Gray Matters..................................................................................................................................2 Book Review: Exploring Critical Issues in Gifted Education.........................................8 Promoting Individualism in an Era of Homogenization, “Standards,” and “Proficiency”.........................................................9 News from the Minnesota Deptartment of Education............................................... 14 3rd Annual Silent Auction..................................................................................................... 15 Program Spotlight: St. Peter Public Schools................................................................... 15 MEGT Annual Conference 2014....................................................................................16-19 MEGT Foundation Scholarship Information & Application.................................20-22 Reflections on NAGC............................................................................................................... 23 5 Minute Professional Development: Flexible Grouping........................................... 24 Board Notes..........................................................................................................................25-26 Board Members......................................................................................................................... 27
Matters
Gray
Mary Ann Rotondi
by
MEGT President
It’s a small, small world. Several weeks ago as I was sitting in my living room participating in a conference call with the Gifted and Talented Advisory Council, I realized how our world has changed since folks like I have attended school. The world is certainly smaller as we are instantly notified when an event happens thousands of miles away and all the details flash across our screens. What will our schools looks like 40 years from now? Will they bear any resemblance to the bricks and mortar that surround the schools of 2013? How will our gifted students be identified and where will they be? When we know that by 2050, the workforce will be 85% people of color and women, how are we preparing our future adults to survive and thrive; creativity and problem-solving will be essential keys to their success. Here’s how the National Association for Gifted Children (NAGC) website imagines it: “One size does not fit all. With an estimated three million academically gifted and talented students in classrooms today, data collected from the 2012-2013 State of the States report clearly surfaces the lack of a coherent national strategy to “light the fire” for the next generation of scientists, mathematicians, peacemakers, artists, and engineers”. An alarming report on the current state of excellence in the United States was released in late October of this year. The conclusion of the report “Talent on the Sidelines: Excellence Gaps and the Persistence of America’s Permanent Talent Underclass” is that the United States is relying on less than 50% of its talent, with huge numbers of our brightest students who are not even identified as “gifted”. The authors of the report were University of Connecticut Professor Jonathan Plucker and colleagues at two other universities; they examined data from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) and state assessments. Their most striking finding is the under-representation of low-income and minority
students among those performing at the highest levels of academic achievement. We have learned from the report: “Minnesota state assessments score a considerable higher number of students at the advanced level than NAEP. In 2011, the Minnesota assessment scored 49% of Grade 4 non‐free and reduced meal (FARM) reading students at the advanced level, while the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) scored the number at 11%. Still, our state assessment does confirm wide Excellence Gaps in 2011, particularly between FARM and non‐FARM students.” It is indeed a small world. Gifted education continues to rediscover itself as it moves forward. There are many pieces in this whole process, but we want to keep our attention to the students we missed yesterday to give them a chance tomorrow.
Recognizing Your Contributions Recognizing Board Members leaving the MEGT Board The MEGT Board would like to recognize Sara Olson, Sue Eggenberger, Angie Huhner, and Kelly Fahrne for their contributions to gifted education and advocacy for the state of Minnesota. Each of the former Board members will be recognized for their years of serve at the Annual Mid-Winter MEGT Conference. Please join us as we share our gratitude.
MEGT Voice
Published Fall, Winter and Spring by Minnesota Educators of the Gifted and Talented, Inc. ...a nonprofit advocacy network Member of The National Association for Gifted Children
http://www.mnegt.org
Please send all articles and announcements for the next issue by April 1, 2014 to: David Wolff 401 3rd Ave. NW • Austin, MN 55912 Work: 507-460-1912 E-mail:
[email protected] Note: E-mail submissions are preferred Address Changes and Corrections should be mailed to:
Page 2
Using Decision-Making Strategies, continued from cover Discussion questions specifically encourage exploration of the issue or issues presented in the learning scenario. They encourage the reflection of personal and professional philosophies and may stimulate further investigations provided in the activities that follow. It is crucial that these questions be used to guide the direction of the discussion. A variety of questions particular to the case are provided allowing the facilitator or reader to choose to answer some or all of them, before proceeding to the activities and extensions. Although it is critical to maintain the integrity of a dilemma with various solutions possible, the reader or group must recognize that some solutions are more easily implemented or probable in given situations. Allowing adequate time to examine these questions helps to ensure that different perspectives and viewpoints are considered. Although discussion questions particular to each case are included, a series of generic questions should also be considered. Stepien and Gallagher (1993) identified metacognitive questions; for instance: What is going on here? What do we need to know more about? What was done during the problem that was effective? The following list includes additional generic questions to consider: • Who is the focus of the case study? • What is the primary issue to be addressed? • Is there a secondary issue? • What cultural factors impact this case study (e.g., socioeconomic status, limited language proficiency, ethnicity, traditions, values/beliefs, family setting, community norms)? • What other factors are relevant to the case study (e.g., evidence of special abilities, mental and physical health limitations or concerns, safety, learning differences, learning style, access to services, motivation, engagement, achievement)? • With whom could you collaborate to resolve the issue(s)? • What course of action would you recommend? • What research supports your recommendation? • What additional information or resources would be helpful?
What Are the Steps in a Case Study Analysis? How Can Decision-Making Strategies Help Enhance the Analysis? Cases are best analyzed by working in pairs or small groups. This helps to maximize the discussion and to support various insights from differing perspectives. In order to gain the greatest benefit in a professional development setting, it may be helpful to identify a facilitator who is not only knowledgeable about issues related to educating gifted learners, but is able to support the group by modeling the problem-solving and decisionmaking processes. It is helpful for the facilitator to clarify that problem solving deals with gathering and sorting facts in order to analyze the issues in a systematic way. Decision making requires that choices be made at each step of problem solving, thus leading to actions. The following steps, and problemsolving and decision-making strategies, reinforce the problembased learning process (adapted from the work of Finkle & Torp, 1995) and are suggested when considering solutions for the learning scenario. 1. The problem is read and reviewed and the facts are identified. 2. A discussion based on the facts occurs. 3. Broad problem results are identified. 4. Determination is made of what is needed (resources) in order to gather information. 5. Possible actions, recommendations, or solutions are analyzed and presented.
Begin by understanding the case. Read the scenario carefully. Focus on the key facts that would influence comprehension of the issue(s). Be sure to identify the Six Ws: who, what, when, where, why, and to what extent in the discussion (see Figure 1 and Appendix B). Consider role modeling various perspectives of the different stakeholders. Answering the generic questions previously presented in this chapter may also be helpful at this point. Use of such questions encourages the reader to take A Hexagonal Radial (see Figure 2 and Appendix B) can also responsibility for the problem. Over a period of time, selfprovide a more in-depth overview of a case study for further directed learning is encouraged and there is less scaffolding understanding including questions such as what happened, needed. Activities prompt further exploration of the issues where did it happen, why did it happen, etc. A simple chart involved in the case, while extensions provide an opportunity (see Figure 3 and Appendix B) can also be used to begin to for the reader to apply understanding and insights related to explore the facts presented, including the focus, issues, and the issue presented in another context, field, or situation. These factors including cultural factors. Another tool for helping to extensions often provide an opportunity to generalize beyond understand the facts of a case is a Basic Radial (see Figure 4 and the particular case. Choosing to participate in one or more of the Appendix B), which considers the following factors: additional activities and or extensions ensures that insight into the topic informationresearch, supporting documents, collaborations, and is obtained. Suggestions for further reading offer the facilitator course of action for a case. and/or reader additional resources to broaden the concept for Answer the suggested questions for the case. Many of the enhanced understanding. questions require the NAGC Pre-K–Grade 12 Gifted Education A case study matrix found in the beginning of the book Programming Standards to be taken into consideration and to represents the various topics and NAGC Pre-K–Grade 12 Gifted reflect on how they might impact the decision-making process. Education Programming Standards (2010), supported within List any other questions concerning the case. Record what is each case. This is especially helpful in selecting a case to meet a found interesting. Respond to questions posed if possible. Some specific professional development or training need. continued on page 4 Page 3
Decision-Making,
cont. from page 3 Once a case has been analyzed using tools like those presented above, some helpful strategies in decision making include questions may remain unanswered. A T-chart, represented in Exploring Critical Issues in Gifted Education questions (Swartz & Parks, 1994) to consider (see Figure 7 and Figure 5 is helpful in recording questions and responses (see Appendix B) along with a decision-making matrix (see Appendix B). Figure 8 and Appendix B). 1. What makes a decision necessary? Who 2. What are my options? What 3. What are the likely consequences of each option? 4. How important are the consequences? Where 5. Which option is best in light of the consequences? When Why
Another useful tool, the Decision Wheel (more information can be found at http://www.blueprint.edu.au/Portals/0/primary/ Wisely_17_Decision_Wheel.pdf ), can be used as a guide to discuss a case using the following questions (see Figure 9 and Appendix B): 1. What is the problem? 2. Using WhatDecision-Making are the choices you have? Strategies to Analyze the Cases 3. What do you think the consequences of these choices will be for yourself and others who are involved?
To What Extent Figure 1. Six Ws.
What happened? Where did it happen?
When did it happen?
Focus
Event Map Who was involved in the event?
Who How did it happen?
Issues
Why did it happen?
Primary
Figure 2. Hexagonal radial.
After summarizing the key facts, try to narrow down a possible facts presented, including Be thesure focus,toissues, and factors cultural facissue(s) or problem(s). consider other including factors (e.g., tors. Another tool for helping to understand the facts of a case is a Basic Radial cultural, economic, pedagogical) that might influence the events (see Figure 4 and Appendix B), which considers the following factors: additional in the scenario. If necessary, discuss resources needed to help information/research, supporting documents, collaborations, and course of action further the analysis. for a case. One problem-solving strategy (see Figure 6 and Appendix B) Answer the suggested questions for the case. Many of the questions require the identified by Swartz and Parks (1994), incorporates a series of five NAGC Pre-K–Grade 12 Gifted Education Programming Standards to be taken questions to consider. They on include: into consideration and to reflect how they might impact the decision-mak ing process. 1. Why is there a problem? List any other questions concerning the case. Record what is found 2. What is the interesting. Respond to problem? questions posed if possible. Some questions may remain 3. What are possible solutions to5the problem? unanswered. A T-chart, represented in Figure is helpful in recording questions responses 4. What would happen and (see Appendix B). if you solved the problem in each of these ways? 5. What is the best solution to the problem? 10
What
Another useful procedure shared by Cash (2011), the I-FORD problem-solving process, uses five steps to identify a problem, gather facts, list and rank options, and then make a decision: Identify: Define or shape the problem. What is the goal you want to achieve? Facts: Gather the facts and data you need to make the best decision. Options: List possible solutions or strategies to solve the problem. Rank your options: Rate, rank, and test your options and strategies. Decide: Make your decision and implement and evaluate your solution. (p. 163)
Secondary
Factors Cultural
Other
Figure 3. Focus, issues, factors.
Additional Information/ Research
Course of Action
CASE
Supporting Documents
Collaborations
Figure 4. Basic radial.
QUESTIONS
RESPONSES
Figure 5. T-chart.
Page 4 11
Using Decision-Making Strategies to Analyze the Cases
Exploring Critical Issues in Gifted Education
SKILLFUL PROBLEM SOLVING
SKILLFUL DECISION MAKING
THE PROBLEM
OPTIONS What can I do?
How might I
? POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS How can I solve the problem?
OPTION CONSIDERED
SOLUTION CONSIDERED
CONSEQUENCES What will happen if I adopt this solution?
PRO OR CON?
CONSEQUENCES What will happen if you take this option?
SUPPORT Why do you think each consequence will occur?
VALUE How important is the consequence? Why?
VALUE How important is the consequence? Why?
NEW SOLUTION How can the solution be changed to make it better?
Figure 6. Skillful problem solving.
Figure 7. Skillful decision making.
to investigate how the cases support the NAGC Pre-K–Grade 12
4. What values do you need to consider? 5. How do you feel about the situation? 6. Is there anything else you need to learn about it? 7. Do you need to ask for help? Who will you ask? 8. What is your decision? 9. Do you think you made the right decision? Why?
14 13 Gifted Education Programming Standards (2010) and can be used
Generate possible solutions to the problem. Determine the need for criteria to weigh possible solutions such as time, costs, level of impact, etc. Evaluate the alternative solutions using the criteria selected. Draft a plan of action as necessary. Present your findings to a larger group. A conflict/resolution organizer can help identify the main conflict and events that lead to the conflict while also allowing for the consideration of events that can lead to a resolution (see Figure 10 and Appendix B). Appendix C offers a sample case study analysis using decision-making strategies and may be helpful to review prior to the first attempt at analyzing a case. The organizers presented in this book are not exhaustive, but provide optional ways
to determine a course of action in similar circumstances. They also give the reader an opportunity to become familiar with issues specific to the field of gifted education and begin to apply this understanding in new and different ways. For additional follow-up, activities and extensions are provided for each case. It is suggested that at least one of these in both sections be used to extend thinking, thereby directing the reader toward developing an authentic product that could be utilized in another setting, personal or professional. Following this process will help the participant learn about the needs of gifted learners and hopefully improve the quality of services provided to them. It is important that any products developed be authentic in nature, meaning that they be implemented in the classroom, school, district, or other setting. The sharing of such products is also beneficial to others.
Page 5
continued on page 6
DECISION-MAKING MATRIX RELEVANT CONSEQUENCES
OPTIONS
UNANSWERED QUESTIONS:
Figure 8. Decision-making matrix.
What Are Some Suggestions for Organizing Professional Development Opportunities? The book can be used in a variety of ways to support professional or staff development for a variety of audiences. First, the book can support coursework related to preservice and in-service general education, special education, and gifted education. Other educators, such as administrators, counselors, psychologists, and support staff, as well as parents can benefit from analyzing and reflecting on situations dealing with the unique needs of the gifted and talented student. Oftentimes, required texts for these classes lack real world, authentic learning scenarios that would encourage and engage the learner in critical thinking beyond the material presented in the book. This book of case studies can supplement a variety of courses while providing educators and other stakeholders the opportunities for collaborative inquiry and learning. Second, the cases can be analyzed in a workshop format within the school setting such as Professional Learning Communities (PLC); thus, empowering staff with decision-making strategies. Astuto, Clark, Read, McGree, and Fernandez (1993) identified the professional community of learners as teachers in a school and its administrators who continuously seek and share learning and then act on what they learn. The goal of their actions is to enhance their effectiveness as professionals so that students benefit. This arrangement has also been termed communities of continuous inquiry and improvement (Hord, 1997). The case studies provide content to enhance what Hord (1997) described as one of the results for staff, “powerful learning that
defines good teaching and classroom practice and that creates new knowledge and beliefs about teaching and learners” (p. 5). In 2011, the National Staff Development Council (NSDC) published a set of standards to help guide educational leaders when creating or implementing effective professional development. The standards focus on learning communities, leadership, resources, data, learning designs, implications, and outcomes. The analysis of the cases support many of these components and is a vehicle for participants to conduct conversations about students, teaching, and learning, while identifying related issues and problems specific to educating gifted learners.
Facilitating Professional Development You may decide that you are either going to be a facilitator of learning and lead a group discussion, or participate as an individual in a group discussion. As a facilitator of learning, whether you choose to conduct a PLC or a 1-hour, 2-hour, 3-hour, or fullday professional development workshop, or supplement reading in coursework, your preparation and familiarity with the cases will enable you to lead the discussion for your group so that all participants benefit from the discourse. The following steps will help the facilitator run an effective professional development session: 1. Determine the learning environment that is conducive to the size of the room and number of participants (e.g., need for tables, participants working in pairs, small groups, large group discussions). Decide if additional materials are needed such as a white board, chart paper,
Page 6
markers, etc. 2. Identify which NAGC Pre-K–Grade 12 Gifted Education Programming Standards (2010) are most important to address based on the needs, readiness, and interests of the group. Select the cases that support the standards identified. 3. Read each case study thoroughly so you are familiar with all aspects of the case. 4. Understand the steps for a case study analysis. 5. Select decision-making strategies that will best enhance the understanding of the case (see Appendix B). 6. Make sure each participant has a copy of this book and reads the case(s). 7. Determine which questions will be most helpful for discussion, which activities will be most appropriate for all or some of the participants, and which extensions will provide further insight and investigation for all or some of the participants. Note that as in any classroom there will be different levels of knowledge, skills, and understandings, and you may have to adjust the pace, depth, and breadth of the discussions. 8. Facilitate the case analysis by modeling critical thinking and decisionmaking strategies for the participants. Being a good facilitator requires listening skills and observation skills, along with knowing when and where to ask questions and elicit further discussion. Be prepared to share additional resources if needed. 9. Assign a timekeeper toStrategies ensure that adequate Using Decision-Making to Analyze thediscussion Cases is appropriated and an opportunity for all to participate is considered.
9 Assess Decision
2 Choices 3
Consequences
1 PROBLEM
8 Decision
7 Who Can Help
6 More Info
4 Values
5 Feelings
Figure 9. Decision wheel.
Resolution or Solution
Conflict or Problem Events contributing to the conflict or problem
· · ·
Consideration of events impacting the resolution or solution
· · ·
Plan of Action Steps to be taken
· · ·
Figure 10. Conflict solution. gists, and support staff, as well as parents can benefit from analyzing and reflecting Page on situations dealing with the unique needs of the gifted and talented student. Oftentimes, required texts for these classes lack real world, authentic learning
Depending on which activities and/or extensions are selected, the time needed to complete them will depend on the depth and complexity required for the case. Final products may take you into the next session or may actually be shared and applied within the local school, district, or other appropriate venue at a later time.
Suggested Format for a Session Agenda Introduction—5 minutes Reading the Case—10 minutes Applying a Case Study Analysis—35 minutes Reflection and Selection of Assignments and/or Extensions—10 minutes
Using Technology to Support Professional Development It is important to consider how technology can support professional development especially in a field where such opportunities may be scarce, limited due to economic constraints, or even nonexistent. In learning, teaching, and professional development, technology is used with varying degrees of intensity and integration into practice. Several models of technology integration have been developed and adopted through research (Dwyer, Ringstaff, & Sandholtz, 1991; Hooper & Rieber, 1995; Moersch, 1995). The predominant levels of technology integration guide professional development and range from awareness and entry through adoption and integration to invention and transformation where the greatest potential lies for working in ways not possible without the technology. Reinventing and transforming professional development, particularly for those educators and stakeholders in gifted education might involve advances such as: • expanding access to activities at any time; • increasing the variety of activities, including content learning, reading and coaching, curriculum development, and advocacy; • specializing and personalizing topics and/or activities; • assuming greater flexibility and opportunity for self-pacing of activities; and • recruiting a wider range of colleagues with which to interact. Professional development activities that occur primarily in face-to-face settings can be supported by technology tools such as software, apps, and webbased resources for conducting literature reviews, reading eBooks, brainstorming, planning, managing projects, continuing discussions online between meetings, and including remote participants in meetings. These tools are easily accessible during the discussion, activities, and extensions presented in the case studies. Job-embedded online professional development programs should share a core of common practices, including community building and sustainability with ongoing facilitated support for cycles of application, learning, and reflection on outcomes. Effective online professional development programs have been developed for several purposes.
7
continued on page 8
For discrete knowledge and skill acquisition (Cavanaugh & Dawson, 2010), informal, individualized professional learning can update an educator’s content knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge. As a formal professional learning community, a cohort-based graduate degree program can be delivered in blended or online format with a focus on identifying and addressing problems in practice (Dawson, Cavanaugh, Sessums, Black, & Kumar, 2011; Kumar, Dawson, Black, Cavanaugh, & Sessums, 2011). In support of inquiry into effective teaching practice, structured examinations of the teaching practice can be scaffolded and shared, using online systems (Dawson, Cavanaugh, & Ritzhaupt, 2012).
Reflecting on the Cases
Although it is certainly acceptable to draw a close to the case study approach after sharing responses and products between and among participants, the importance of reflection cannot be understated. Journal writing and dialogue or an interactive journal format can provide an opportunity to expand thinking and stimulate awareness of personal values and beliefs. They may be used as a vehicle for further questions or be explored or connected to other issues at a later time. Finally, reflective thinking allows for consi
References Christine L. Weber, Ph.D, Cecelia Boswell, Ed.D, Wendy Behrens. Exploring Critical Issues in Gifted Education: A Case Studies Approach. Prufrock Press, 2013
Book Review Exploring Critical Issues in Gifted Education by Weber, Boswell, and Behrens
Teacher perspective David Wolff, District Coordinator and Teacher of Gifted and Talented Education, Austin Public Schools
Coordinator perspective Gwen Briesemeister, K-12 Talent Development Coordinator, Delano Public Schools
As a teacher of gifted learners, this book gives me a tool to analyze real-life situations that I face on a daily basis. The process of reading, reflecting, and finding resolution to the situations strengthens my practice and knowledge as a teacher. The book has a wide variety of short, concise case studies that cover topics that are linked to the NAGC standards. Topics include identification, Response-to-Intervention [RtI], students who are twice-exceptional [2E], students from underrepresented populations, tiering assignments, acceleration, early childhood gifted education, to professional development. I see this book as being a powerful tool to use as a books study in our Professional Learning Communities [PLCs] as well as a great grounding activity at department meetings. The parts that I enjoy the most are the sections that extend each case study – ‘Activities and Extensions.’ Just as we are challenged to offer advanced instruction for all learners, the authors provided various activities and extensions that allow teachers to apply our knowledge and extend our learning by taking the current topics and making part of our practice. These go beyond the typical discussion questions most case studies provide. I highly recommend this book to all teachers and administrators of gifted learners.
If you have ever looked for a book that will provide situational training ideas and information about multiple aspects of gifted education, this is the book for you. As I previewed this book I discovered that it contained gifted scenarios that provided real situations for the novice and the experience educator. The scenarios are relevant to the classroom and easily lend themselves to discussion in a small group setting. The authors have provided in-depth, open-ended questions following the case studies that will push participants to think about what they know and believe about gifted education. As coordinators, isn’t that exactly what we want our staff to do? If you are working with a novice group, there are many suggestions for further study on each topic as well as brief introductions at the beginning of each chapter to provide additional understanding. The authors also aligned the ideas presented with the NAGC standards, which further emphasizes the importance of developing a cohesive approach to gifted programming. The book could be used as a yearlong study or simply choose one chapter. If you are working on a particular area you could spend several sessions focusing on this by using the discussion questions as well as many of the suggested follow-up activities and resources. It is not necessary to read each chapter in order as they are designed to stand alone. Exploring Critical Issues in Gifted Education is a practical tool for professional development that provides coordinators with ample resources lists to prepare in advanced and more than one case study in each area which allows you to customize your training sessions to your particular needs.
Page 8
Promoting Individualism in an Era of Homogenization, “Standards,” and “Proficiency” By Dr. Stephen Schroeder-Davis District Coordinator of Gifted Services, Elk River Area School District
Response to Intervention
This column is an invitation to engage in discussion about how broad, mandated (including de facto mandates) educational initiatives impact gifted students. I will argue that virtually all movements that attempt to standardize students, as well as initiatives that aim at “equity” without giving equal consideration to excellence, are harmful to all students and are disproportionally injurious to gifted students, regardless of the stated intentions of the program, service, framework, or legislation. The chart below provides a brief overview of relatively recent legislation and initiatives that demonstrate our nation’s disregard for gifted students.
A Brief History of Educational Neglect
While all of the below initiatives were or are ultimately injurious to gifted and high ability learners, RtI merits special attention because its initial purveyors so blatantly violated their own framework and purported belief system.
As part of the reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA), RtI was designed to replace the discrepancy model of special education, which required that students be two grade levels behind their peers before they could qualify for an Individual Education Plan (IEP) through special education. The RtI model offers instead “universal” screening, followed by a tiered intervention system: Tier 1 is intended to meet the needs of about 80% of students in a regular classroom, primarily via differentiation. Students “at risk for poor learning outcomes” (i.e., those not among the 80% who are “proficient”) are given real-time support during the school day via Tier 2 “targeted interventions.” The few students in Tier 2 still at risk for “poor learning outcomes” if Tier 2 strategies fail are moved to Tier 3 and provided “intense interventions.” In today’s coercively egalitarian educational climate, “poor learning outcomes” are implicitly understood
Legislation or initiative
Details
Public Law 94-142
Education for All Handicapped Children Act 1975
Required appropriate educational services for all students, but gifted students were not included as a protected group.
Educational Consolidation and Improvement Act 1980
No Child Left Behind 2002
Re-authorization of Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) to Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA). 2004
Impact on Gifted
Took finite resources and devoted them exclusively to exceptional students who struggled to reach proficiency. Without categorical funding desElimination of the “Office ignation, gifted advocates as well of Gifted and Talented.” as advocates for other programs Block grants eliminated operated in a “zero-sum” environspecific funding for gifted ment, as money awarded to one programs. program necessarily diminished funding for another. Federal legislation requiring state Focus on “mass proficiency” and standardized tests precludes gifted standards. students from being a priority for teachers or institutions. Removes the requirements of the Does not include, or even ac“significant discrepancy” formula knowledge, asynchronous develfor learning disabilities classifica- opment as a “severe discrepancy” tion and requires that states must and, in practice, defines a “poor permit districts to instead adopt learning outcome” as not meeting alternative models including the proficiency rather than not learning to capacity. “Response to Intervention (RTI)” model.
Page 9
to refer to students operating below proficiency, that is, not meeting grade level standards or not performing at “grade level.” Students at risk for “poor learning outcomes” because of intellectual starvation were, of course, not part of this calculus. Evidence of this omission includes: • A word search of the National RtI database using the search terms gifted education, and then high achiever both yielded the search engine response, “There is no item available for given search criteria.” The key words special education, on the other hand, yielded 39 hits and three extensive bibliographies. • Two of the best selling books on RtI, Fisher and Frey’s (2010) Enhancing RtI, and Buffum, Mattos, and Weber’s (2009) Pyramid Response to Intervention, do not reference “gifted,” “enrichment,” or “extension,” despite the fact that RtI proponents claim universality in terms of assessments and interventions. • A survey of State Departments in Johnsen, Sulak, and Rollin’s (2012) Serving Gifted Students within an RtI Framework revealed that of the 31 states that responded, only 10 explicitly include gifted students as part of their RtI vision. Some of those responding indicated their definition of universal was so comprehensive that gifted students could be assumed to be included. Granting that, and further, assuming hypothetically that all nonresponding states did include gifted students explicitly, we are still left with 18 states responding that their RtI model excludes gifted students. Eighteen of 50 states, 36%, is far from “universal.” The proponents of Response to Intervention claimed RtI was a means to intervene in real time to address all students at risk of a “poor learning outcome” and then proceeded to omit continued on page 10
Promoting Individualism, an entire population: gifted students and anyone else achieving above proficiency! Thankfully many authors and commentators have since addressed this insensitive and hypocritical oversight, but gifted students should not need to be retroactively inserted within a framework that is explicitly promoted as universal.
The Problem with (Content) Standards and Mass Testing
Unfortunately, RtI is not the only contemporary educational initiative guilty of symbolically erasing gifted students. Injury wrought as a consequence of the 2002 No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) was even more pernicious and devastating. NCLB’s factory assembly line approach to education in service of yielding young, standardized, economicproduction-units to reestablish America as the dominant economic power across the globe harms all learners, but it is disproportionately harmful to the gifted, as they became dispensable, having already met “factory standards” prior to instruction. While educational standards are almost universally embraced, there are significant, inherent dangers if standardization becomes extreme. In a book entitled The Half-Life of Facts, author Samuel Arbesman (2012) posits this scenario: Imagine a small group of randomly chosen people stranded on a desert island. Not only would they have just a small subset of the knowledge necessary to recreate modern civilization – assuming Gilligan’s professor wasn’t included - but only a tiny fraction of the required skills could be done by each person. Much like the economic concept of the division of labor, even if we each have two or three skills, to perform then all adeptly and also pass them along to our descendants, is a difficult proposition. The maintenance and creation of cultural knowledge are much more easily done with large groups of people; each person can specialize and be responsible for a smaller area of knowledge. (p. 58, emphasis added) The situation above can be
continued from page 9
considered analogous to what standards, mass testing, and the homogenization of curriculum are doing to our students. According to the National Center on Education Statistics (n.d.), 49.8 million children were enrolled in the American school system during the fall of 2012, a system that in theory should promote a robust profusion of expertise and innovation were students allowed to pursue (or even discover) their passions. But since the Federal Government has decreed that all students are to reach “proficiency” in a uniform set of subjects, the 49.8 million students instead are destined to function as considerably less than 49.8 million individuals, as the system—standardization— has reduced their opportunity for expertise and innovation by many orders of magnitude. According to Bryan Caplan (as cited in Abesman, 2012): The more populous periods of human history—most obviously the last few centuries—clearly produced more scientific, technological and cultural innovations than earlier, less populous periods. More populous countries produce many more scientific, technological and cultural innovations than less populous countries. (p. 58) America is a populous country, but the standardized approach to education is actively working to diminish the inherently advantageous diversity of large populations. Requiring all students to learn the same basic body of knowledge for the majority of their years in school is analogous to reducing the number of students attending school, and therefore reducing the number of scientific, technological, and cultural innovations they could generate. Worse, this same demand, that all students know primarily the same information, at the same time, to the same degree of mastery, simultaneously reduces many students’ passion for learning, as it discourages—if not outright disallows— individual discovery, exploration, and development of each learner’s unique interests and abilities. In English, we have a phrase about being “in your element.” Sir Ken Robinson
Page 10
(2009) uses the idea of element to “describe the place where the things we love to do and the things we are good at come together” (p. xiii). In his introduction, Robinson (2009) stated, “This book is a hymn to the breathtaking diversity of human talent and passion and to our extraordinary potential for growth and development (pp. xiii–xiv). Robinson (2009) further stated: The element has two main features, and there are two conditions for being in it. The features are aptitude and passion. The conditions are attitude and opportunity. The sequence goes something like this: I get it, I love it, I want it, where is it? (p. 22). Referring to educational policy makers and their apparent antipathy toward the element, Robinson (2009) wrote: They seem to believe that if they feed our children a nationally prescribed menu of reading, writing and arithmetic, we’ll be more competitive in the world and more prepared for the future. What is catastrophically wrong with this mode of thinking is that is severely underestimates human capacity. (p. 15-16) If we want students to become intellectuals, creative producers, and more importantly, healthy, welladjusted individuals, they deserve every opportunity to find their element. The rigid requirements imposed on schools are analogous to and as dangerous as a rigid diet would be to a large percentage of the population, even if it were dictated by experts and endorsed by legislators. Just as diabetics, persons with lactose or wheat intolerance, and others with unique dietary needs would suffer under a universally-imposed diet regimen, so too will our gifted learners suffer under our universally-imposed standards and testing requirements, which for them can lead to a cognitive starvation diet. Optimal development precludes the assumption that what is good for some is good for all.
Problems with the Common Core The Common Core State Standards
(CCSS) present an equally problematic system of standardization for teachers and students, as they dictate (albeit within a more rigorous and articulated framework) a universal curricular scope and sequence intended for all students. For those who are committed to the Common Core, this quote from From Common Core Standards to Curriculum: Five Big Ideas (McTighe & Wiggins, 2012) is worth remembering: The standards are like the building code. Architects and builders must attend to them but they are not the purpose of the design. The house to be built or renovated is designed to meet the needs of the client . . . while also meeting the building code along the way.” (p. 3, Emphasis added) It remains to be seen if the CCSS can establish a standard “building code” while at the same time meeting the unique needs of almost 50 million individual, non-standardized students. On November 16, Anthony Cody (2013) wrote a fascinating blog that critiqued the common core. The entire blog is worth reading, but I will quote what I see as his most cogent criticisms: • The Common Core creates a rigid set of performance expectations for every grade level, and results in tightly controlled instructional timelines and curriculum. At the heart of the Common Core is standardization. Every student, without exception, is expected to reach the same benchmarks at every grade level. Early childhood educators know better than this. Children develop at different rates, and we do far more harm than good when we begin labeling them “behind” at an early age. (Cody, 2013, para. 33-34) • Common Core relies on a narrow conception of the purpose of K12 education as “career and college readiness.” When one reads the official rationales for the Common Core there is little question about the utilitarian philosophy at work. Our children must be prepared to “compete in the global economy.” This runs against the grain of the historic purpose of public education, which was to prepare citizens for our democracy, with the
knowledge and skills to live fruitful lives and improve our society.(para. 51-52) • The biggest problem of American education and American society is the growing number of children living in poverty. . . . The Common Core does nothing to address this problem. In fact, it is diverting scarce resources and time into more tests, more technology for the purpose of testing, and into ever more test preparation. (para. 61-62) • As William Mathis (2012) pointed out, “As the absence or presence of rigorous or national standards says nothing about equity, educational quality, or the provision of adequate educational services, there is no reason to expect CCSS or any other standards initiative to be an effective educational reform by itself.” (para. 60) • The Common Core is not based on any external evidence, has no research to support it, has never been tested, and worst of all, offers no mechanism for correction. (para. 59) • The process to write the standards remained secret, with few opportunities for input from parents, students and educators. No experts in language acquisition or special education were involved, and no effort was made to see how the standards worked in practice, or whether they were realistic and attainable (emphasis added). (Cody, 2013, para. 10) The italicized points should be of special concern for gifted advocates (especially those advocating for twiceexceptional gifted students) in that the common core could result in American education becoming an even more oppressive version of No Child Left Behind, as teachers will be forced to focus on the more “urgent” needs of English Language Learners and Special Education students, who must “attain” the CCSS at the same pace and proficiency as all other students, despite the fact that they were not accommodated in the drafting of the CCSS. Further, the majority of regular education students will not acquire the standards with the rapidity or mastery of gifted students, leaving gifted students to do . . . what, exactly, as they wait for other
students to acquire “proficiency”?
Recommendations
Writing in Education Week, Marion Brady (2009) offered several suggestions for improving schools. Here are three I think would be of particular benefit for gifted students: 1. Stop fixating on the American economy. Trying to shape kids to fit the needs of business and industry rather than the other way around is immoral. 2. Stop massive, standardized testing. For a fraction of the cost of highstakes subject-matter tests, every kid’s strengths and weaknesses can be identified using inexpensive inventories of interests, abilities, and learning styles. 3. Abandon the assumption that spending the day “covering the material” in a random mix of five or six subjects educates well. Only one course of study is absolutely essential. Societal cohesion and effective functioning require participation in a broad conversation about values, beliefs, and patterns of action, their origins, and their probable and possible future consequences. The young need to engage in that conversation, and a single, comprehensive, systematically integrated course of study could prepare them for it. It should be the only required course. (Brady, 2009 p. 24-25) While I agree with Brady’s condemnation of business and industry driving educational reform, I will concentrate on his last two suggestions, as they are foundational to my own recommendations. Brady’s second proposal almost certainly will not be adopted in the foreseeable future and indeed may go too far, as, for example, teachers in my district have found several standardized tests to be very helpful assessments. However, drastically reducing the number of mandated standardized tests and offering a battery of learning style, occupational, and alternative assessments would be of great benefit to students. I am partial to the assessments Robert Sternberg (2012) continued on page 12
Page 11
has created and continues to refine as part of a series of projects organized around the idea of utilizing nontraditional assessments to make college admissions more inclusive and equitable. I have excerpted below several prompts from Sternberg’s (2012) article “The Assessment of Creativity: An InvestmentBased Approach,” to demonstrate how they could be useful in helping students discover their learning strengths while simultaneously requiring them to think beyond the usual convergent, multiplechoice answers: 1. History’s great events often turn on small moments. For example, what if Rosa Parks had given up her seat on that bus? What if Pope John Paul I had not died after a month in office in 1978? What if Gore had beaten Bush in Florida and won the 2000 U.S. Presidential election? Using your knowledge of American or world history, choose a defining moment and imagine an alternate historical scenario if that key event had played out differently. 2. Create a short story using one of the following topics: a. The end of MTV b. Confessions of a middle school bully c. The professor disappeared d. The mysterious lab 3. Engineers and scientists like astronomer Edwin Powell Hubble discover new solutions to contemporary issues. ‘‘Equipped with his five senses,’’ Hubble said, ‘‘man explores the universe around him and calls the adventure Science.’’ Using your knowledge of scientific principles, identify ‘‘an adventure’’ in science you would like to study and tell us how you would design an investigation to address it. What solution do you hope to find and why? (p. 7) Mental challenges such as these allow students to gravitate toward their preferred learning style(s), even in the absence of a battery of learning style inventories. In fact, I would argue that well designed, robust, differentiated curricula might make such inventories unnecessary, but that can be debated elsewhere. The major point to be derived from both Brady and Sternberg is that
every student’s learning profile (gender, learning style, culture, context, and intelligence preferences) is unique and simply cannot be accommodated by the uniformity dictated by any one set of standards. This brings me to Brady’s third point. Brady (2009) stated, Societal cohesion and effective functioning require participation in a broad conversation about values, beliefs, and patterns of action, their origins, and their probable and possible future consequences. The young need to engage in that conversation, and a single, comprehensive, systematically integrated course of study could prepare them for it. It should be the only required course. (para. 14‐16) Whether Brady’s assertion could be operationalized within one course or several is open to exploration, but the essential idea, that content is less important than context and process, should be beyond debate, as there is simply too much dynamic content being discovered or created hourly to allow content to be the central focus of tests and standards. When learning must be quantified, there are several ways to do so that can allow students to be in their “element,” if process rather than content is focal. Norman Webb’s (as cited in Wisconsin Center of Educational Research, n.d.) “Depth of Knowledge” (DOK) was
Page 12
created as a way to align standards with assessments and provides one example of a robust way to examine how students can engage with content. Note the chart below, showing the top two levels of DOK, are independent of content, can be applied to any standard, and therefore are transdisciplinary. Content here is a means to an end (thinking) rather than an end in itself (memorizing). DOK also can be used effectively without the regimentation of creativity-inhibiting rubrics and accommodates—in fact encourages— heuristic rather than algorithmic thinking, as the evidence of DOK cited below would typically change according to varied circumstances. The elegance of a framework such as Webb’s is that it allows schools to avoid the collateral damage our current system creates, which is a hierarchy of subject importance, with content that lends itself to mass testing, and reading and math holding hegemony over virtually all other content areas and driving the arts to virtual extinction in some districts. The “21st century” learning and innovation skills I will refer to as processes and advanced by the Partnership for 21st Century Skills (2011) are usually enumerated as communication, collaboration, critical thinking, and creativity. These processes occur in all disciplines and are paramount in the fine arts, which ironically are most at risk due to the emphasis on mass proficiency in
math and reading. If I were to refine Brady’s idea that there should be one unifying course as the only educational requirement, I would say this: Once students have reached the point at which they can independently “read to learn,” and its mathematical equivalent, they should be free to pursue their interests so as to be in their “element” in any selected course(s) of study, so long as the foundation of those courses consist of the processes of communication, collaboration, critical thinking, and creativity. Imagine the joy student artists would experience when freed of remediation in math (which many students are forced to take in place of electives in art) to pursue their passion in sculpture, all the while learning the crucial 21st century skills, along with other students pursuing their passions as they learn the same skills in their respective elective courses of study.
Summary
In this article, I decried the direction teachers and students are being forced to take as a result of misguided, injurious dictates from federal and state governing bodies. It is my belief that the best teachers, who continue engaging and challenging (gifted) students, must do so in spite of and often in contradiction to the nation’s vast testing requirements and policy makers’ notions that standardization is preferable to differentiation. Differentiation, individualization, and student choice increase student engagement and therefore maximize the possibility that students can discover their passions and expertise—what Sir Kenneth Robinson calls their “element.” Helping students find their element, rather than enduring homogenization and commodification in service of “global competition” should be the purpose of E – 12 education. Once students find their unique element, becoming college and/or career ready will almost take care of themselves.
Buffum, A., Mattos, M., & Weber, C. (2009). Pyramid response to intervention: RtI, professional learning communities, and how to respond when kids don’t learn. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree. Cody, A. (2013, November 16). Common Core standards: Ten colossal errors [Web log post]. Retrieved from the Education Week website http://blogs.edweek.org/ teachers/living-in-dialogue/2013/11/ common_core_standards_ten_colo.html Fisher, D. & Frey, N. Enhancing RtI: How to Ensure success with effective classroom instruction and intervention. Alexandria, VA: Association for Curriculum Supervision and Development. Johnsen, S., Sulak, T., & Rollins, K. (2012). Serving gifted students within an RtI framework: A practice guide. Austin, TX: Prufrock Press. McTighe, J., & Wiggins, G. (2012). From common core standards to curriculum: Five big ideas. Retrieved from http:// grantwiggins.files.wordpress.com/2012/ 09/mctighe_wiggins_final_common_ core_standards.pdf
National Center on Education Statistics (n.d.). Back to school statistics. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/FastFacts/display. asp?id=373 Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2011). http://www.p21.org/ Robinson, K. (2009). The element: How finding your passion changes everything. New York, NY: Penguin Books. Sternberg, R. (2012). The assessment of creativity: An investment-based approach. Creativity Research Journal, 24(1), 3–12. Wisconsin Center of Educational Research. (n.d.). Web alignment tool. Available from the Wisconsin Center of Educational Research, University of WisconsinMadison website: http://www.wcer.wisc. edu/WAT/index.aspx
We have a new website! Check it out at:
mnegt.org
References Arbesman, S. (2012). The half-life of facts: Why everything we know has an expiration date. New York, NY: Current Hardcover, Penguin Group. Brady, M. (2009, January 23). No dog left behind: The fallacy of “tough love” reform. Education Week, 28(19), 24‐25.
www.mnegt.org Page 13
News from the Minnesota Department of Education Early Kindergarten Entrance Workshop – February 13, 2014 Mark your calendars for MDE’s Decision Making Strategies for Early Entrance Workshop designed to assist school districts and charter schools in developing board-approved policies for the early admission of select students into kindergarten. The Decision Making Strategies for Early Entrance Workshop will be held at MDE, Conference Center B on Thursday, February 13, 2014 from 9:00 – 3:00 pm. The workshop will provide detailed information about effective assessment of children who potentially may be admitted to kindergarten prior to meeting the age-eligibility requirement for kindergarten entrance. More information about the workshop will be provided early January 2014. For additional information, contact Debbykay Peterson at
[email protected] or Wendy Behrens at wendy.
[email protected]. Congratulations! Two Minnesotans received awards in Indianapolis at the 60th National Association for the Gifted (NAGC) annual conference. Wendy A. Behrens received the NAGC President’s Award and Maggie S. Smith received the Hollingsworth Award at the Celebration of Excellence. Wendy is the gifted education specialist at the Minnesota Department of Education. Maggie is a teacher on special assignment working for the Minneapolis Public Schools. Congratulations to Karen L. Westberg, recipient of the Minnesota Council for Gifted and Talented 2013 Friend of the Gifted. Karen is a professor of education at the University of St. Thomas. Special Schools for the Gifted A network is in place for school leadership team members from districts that have special schools for the gifted or are exploring the possibility of creating one. The network provides an opportunity for leaders to discuss their roles and the use of best practices on a variety of topics. Each network meeting includes an invited guest speaker, school presentations and round-table discussions. There is no charge and all are welcome to register at https://www. surveymonkey.com/s/SpcSchGiftedNet14 to attend the meetings. Dates and topics for this school year are: • 01/24/2014 Equity, Integration and Gifted Learners • 02/21/2014 Beyond Ability: What it takes to be successful in the 21st century • 03/07/2014 Next Steps: Special Schools for Secondary Students? Hormel Foundation Gifted and Talented Education Symposium is collaboration between the Hormel Foundation, the Minnesota Department of Education and the Austin School District. The dates of the sixth annual General Symposium are June 9-12, 2014, in Austin, Minnesota. There will be a preconference June 8 and an Administrator Day on June 9. Program and registration information will be available by February 1 via a link from the Minnesota Department of Education Gifted Education webpage and the Austin Public School District. Limited grant funding will be available to support first time
attendees who are Minnesota public school administrators, school counselors, psychologists, and coordinators. Contact Wendy Behrens at
[email protected] to learn more about available funding. Scholars of Distinction Award Program Student projects are due on or before March 10, 2014 and may be submitted to Wendy Behrens at
[email protected]. All applicants are required to complete the Intent to Apply Form available at: http://education.state.mn.us/MDE/StuSuc/ ScholarRecog/ScholarsDistinc/index.html The Scholars of Distinction Award Ceremony will be held on May 17th at the Perpich Center for Arts Education. The Davidson Institute for Talent Development is a nationwide nonprofit organization established by former educational software entrepreneurs, Bob and Jan Davidson. The organization’s mission is to support the needs of profoundly gifted children through information resources, networking and educational opportunities, family support, advocacy, and scholarships. Over the years a number of Minnesota students have been designated Davidson Young Scholars and have received expert consultation and qualified for substantial scholarships. The level of support provided can have an enormous impact on the future of the students and families. Please share the following information anyone who may be interested in applying to become a Davidson Young Scholar or to receive a scholarship. To learn more about the organization visit www.davidsongifted.org/ Davidson Young Scholars Application Available The national Davidson Young Scholars program helps profoundly gifted students discover others with similar interests and abilities, utilizing their skills and talents to maximize their educational potential and make a difference in the lives of others. Parents collaborate with a skilled team of Family Consultants who provide individualized services based on each family’s unique needs, most often in the areas of educational advocacy, social and emotional development, and enrichment opportunities. Read Young Scholar Success Stories (www. DavidsonGifted.org/YSSuccessStories) about how the Young Scholars program has helped make a difference in the lives of these students. The Davidson Young Scholars application deadline is the first of each month. Please visit the website to learn more: www.DavidsonGifted.org/YoungScholars. 2014 Davidson Fellows $50,000, $25,000 and $10,000 Scholarships If you are a student who will be 18 or younger as of Oct. 1, 2014 and are working on a graduate-level project in any field of study, please consider applying for the 2014 Davidson Fellows scholarship. The Davidson Institute for Talent Development offers high-achieving young people across the country the opportunity to be named a 2014 Davidson Fellow, an honor accompanied by a $50,000, $25,000 or $10,000 scholarship in recognition of
Page 14
a significant piece of work in Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics, Music, Literature, Philosophy or Outside the Box. Applicants must submit an original piece of work recognized by experts in the field as significant that has the potential to make a positive contribution to society. The scholarship may be used at any accredited college or university. The deadline to apply is Feb. 12, 2014. For additional information, please visit www. DavidsonGifted.org/Fellows. Math and the Gifted Learner Over 150 educators registered to attend the Math and the Gifted Learner at MDE in November. The workshop featured a presentation by Dr. Karen B. Rogers and a panel discussion by Kim Westra, Chris Lenius and Maggie Smith. Conversation is underway for future collaboration on this topic. National Science Foundation Grants The National Science Foundation is providing funding for high school students and teachers. A rare opportunity exists for participants to conduct innovative research in an entrepreneurial setting with small businesses and start-ups funded by the NSF Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR) Program As you know, today’s economic trends have resulted in critical workforce shortages in the science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) fields. These SBIR research opportunities aim to help bring STEM to life. For information about grants visit: http://www.nsf.gov/eng/iip/sbir/portfolio/researchexp.jsp
3rd ANNUAL SILENT AUCTION TO BENEFIT GIFTED AND TALENTED STUDENTS Please join us at Cragun’s Conference Center in Brainerd on February 9 – 11, 2014, for our 25th Silver Anniversary Conference celebrating the inception of the Minnesota Educators of Gifted and Talented (MEGT) and our 3rd annual Silent MEGT Foundation Auction. As an attendee of our conference you can be part of this amazing fun-filled event. In the past, auction items have included ski tickets, framed artwork, jewelry, massage and healing products, golf packages, Little Free Library and many more amazing items. As in the past years, if you would like to donate an item for the auction, please bring your donation to the conference or drop off the item in advance with any of the MEGT Board members. (Our names and contact info are located on the last page of this newsletter.) All proceeds go to the MEGT Foundation which offers scholarships to teachers to help support gifted and talented student opportunities. In addition to this event, there will be a drawing for all conference attendees with prizes given away on Tuesday after the keynote speaker. These prizes include “silver themed” gift baskets donated from each region around the state. For more information on registering to attend our conference, please go to our website at mnegt.org. Questions regarding the auction can be addressed to:
[email protected] Hope to see you there. Let the bidding begin!
Program Spotlight:
St. Peter Public Schools The Saint Peter Public School’s mission is to assist gifted and talented students in reaching their greatest potential by providing stimulating and challenging opportunities that meet their unique and diverse needs. We believe it is essential to recognize the unique abilities of each individual student within the district. We are also committed to recognizing outstanding talents from all cultural groups and across all economic strata. In addition, we recognize and nurture the development of exceptional abilities so that all gifted students demonstrate and appreciate positive self-esteem, high-level thinking, and creative productivity. It is also important to recognize that gifted students have special educational needs that should be met within the context of educating the whole child through a variety of services and options. The role of our program is to: 1) Identify the particular abilities and specific needs of these students, 2) Challenge students functioning at the highest level of ability, 3) Encourage underachieving students who are capable of the highest performance, and 4) Promote higher level creative and productive thinking skills throughout the district. Our identification process includes using the Renzulli Model along with a variety of screening tools, recommendations, and referrals. The tools include standardized achievement assessments such as the Northwest Evaluation Association’s Measures of Academic Progress and the Minnesota Comprehensive Assessments. Teacher recommendations along with parent and student referrals are also taken into consideration. In some cases, further assessment of individual student strengths and needs may also be necessary. The Saint Peter School District offers a variety of gifted services for students in grades K-12. These services range from the elementary gifted pull out program to the advanced placement classes offered in high school. There is a wide range of opportunities available within the school district. Each course and activity is carefully designed and tailored to provide both challenge and rigor for students at all ability levels. Teachers of gifted and high achieving students also enrich and extend the core curriculum for students by giving them the opportunity to better understand the curriculum in greater depth and complexity. In elementary school, students have an opportunity to participate in a variety of extra-curricular programs as well. These programs include Math Masters, Stock Market Game, Science & Nature Conference, and Readers & Writers Conference just to name a few. In middle school, students also have an opportunity to participate in activities such as Math Counts, Knowledge Bowl, and Mock Trial, in addition to a host of other extra-curricular programs at the high school level. For more information about any of these programs, please contact Scott Robinson, Gifted and Talented Coordinator at
[email protected]
Page 15
Announcing Keynote Speaker MEGT 22nd Gifted Conference February 9-11, 2014
Alicia Cotabish, Ed.D. Alicia Cotabish, Ed. D., is an Assistant Professor of Teaching and Learning at the University of Central Arkansas. Currently, Alicia teaches graduate-level K–12 teacher candidates and secondary science methodology. Alicia directed STEM Starters, a Jacob K. Javits project, and was the former Associate Director of the Jodie Mahony Center for Gifted Education at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock. As a public school teacher, Alicia taught middle school and Pre-AP science and was an award-winning gifted and talented teacher and coordinator for 8 years in Texas and Arkansas. Her recent work has focused on STEM, gifted education, and peer coaching. Alicia is one of the authors of Using the Next Generation Science Standards With Gifted and Advanced Learners a book that provides teachers and administrators examples and strategies to implement the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) with gifted and advanced learners at all stages of development in K–12 schools.
Page 16
Announcing Keynote Speaker MEGT 22nd Gifted Conference February 9-11, 2014
Patricia Schoonover, Ph.D. Patricia F. Schoonover, Ph.D., has over thirty years of experience and work in the areas of creativity, Creative Problem Solving, creativity style preferences and Gifted Education. Pat is part of the Board of Directors with the Center for Creative Learning (http://creativelearning.com). She lives in Clintonville, WI. Pat is a consultant who works with schools and other organizations, and teaches an online Creative Problem Solving Process and Tools as an undergraduate and graduate level course through the University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point. Pat has worked for many years in the area of gifted education and talent development and teaches an online graduate-level course about twice-gifted children. She worked in elementary gifted education and as Director of Gifted Programming and a lecturer at the University of Wisconsin-Green Bay. She was the founding Executive Director for Destination ImagiNation program. Pat's research, writing, and training interests focus on creativity, CPS, creativity style preferences, and leadership. Pat has authored numerous books and articles on CPS, creativity and innovation. Page 17
Pump It Up!
Differentiate the Common Core MEGT 22nd Gifted Conference Conference information at: www.mnegt.org
February 9-11, 2014
Page 18
2013 – 2014 MEGT Foundation Grant Process WHO:
Grants are intended for teachers and other licensed personnel who work with gifted and talented students in Minnesota; preference will be given to members of MEGT.
WHAT:
1. Grants will be given to support the professional development needs of licensed staff. • Scholarships to attend the annual MEGT conference (up to $700) • Financial support for taking coursework towards earning a gifted certificate (up to $400) • Scholarships for registration fees for attending professional workshops (up to $300) 2. Grants will provide start-up dollars for a new initiative (up to $500) (i.e. starting a parent group, providing student academic competitions, initiating a book club)
WHEN:
Grant request deadline: by November 30, 2013
Notification of award: by December 15, 2013
HOW:
1. Grant applications are available at www.mnegt.org.
Complete and submit to: Jessica Wiley at:
[email protected] or Jessica Wiley MEGT Foundation Board 434 Newton Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55405
MEGT FOUNDATION GRANT REQUEST 1. Funds are being requested for:
Scholarship for MEGT conference •
First time attendee
Yes
No
Scholarship for professional development (attach registration information)
Funds for coursework towards gifted certificate (attach registration information)
A new initiative (summarize below)
2. Summarize the need and rationale for your request in no more than 200 words
3. How will your receiving these funds impact students and/or staff ?
4. Conference/course/project start date: Conference/course/project end date: 5. How conference/course/project will be funded: __________Total cost of project __________MEGT Foundation grant dollars requested __________Personal funds contributed __________Other (District, school, grants)
6. I am willing to accept partial funding
yes
no
7. I am a member of MEGT
yes
no
8. I agree to complete the post-grant feedback form due June 15. Name
Yes
Address Phone Email School School District Position Description Years of Experience Send application by November 30, 2013 to: Jessica Wiley MEGT Foundation Board 434 Newton Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55405 or
[email protected]
NAGC Reflections Sue Feigal-Hitch, Jeanne Simmonds, Jo Tate and Bill Keilty
The NAGC convention in Indianapolis was once again a place to gather the latest research, best practice and current practical applications for educators in the field of gifted education. The opening sessions gave an overview of gifted programs nationally. There is uneven program status across the nation to say the least. Individual pockets of excellence exist and the programming varies greatly state to state. Many gifted programs are stuck in styles of the past (from 30 years ago) and not changing or adapting as new research on sites such as NRC GT advises. The field of gifted education has the research to know what to do meet better meet the needs of gifted learners. NAGC expresses concern that research and best practices are not making it into the field. NAGC is recommending that states and school districts use a growth model for GT learners to fully meet the needs of these learners. Program evaluations are essential to really determine whether or not GT programs make a difference with the students. Data to demonstrate program effectiveness and accountability is greatly needed across the nation. NAGC’s Call to Action: 1. Training in gifted education is needed for all teachers and school leaders. 2. State policy allowing a wide range of acceleration options must be in place. 3. Following gifted students as a separate population in student achievement and accountability measures is essential to ensure the needs of gifted learners are met in the current school climate. Insights and advise from the past presidents of NAGC: 1. What has general education taken from gifted education? -Independent study -Differentiation -Concept of individual differences -Complexity of the fruition of talent
2. Gifted education will gain popular support across the nation when we: -Develop new programs to serve the students - especially in early childhood -Do more in talent development -Develop better methods of finding gifted students and then serve them; especially in the underserved populations -Develop new models and approaches for meeting the needs of gifted learners -Put our research into popular practice -Take responsibility to see if what we’re doing is working for the gifted learner 3.
The biggest threat to gifted education comes from: -Differentiation in the regular classroom that is not executed well - a good idea that has turned into a poorly administered program -The notion that gifted education is isolated and special in some way; we shouldn’t set ourselves up as exclusive. Special education and others also work with talent development.
4. Best lessons the past presidents have learned: -Frame our actions carefully keeping in mind that we are moving a very important field forward -Every generation of teachers will have incorrect beliefs about gifted and will have to be educated. We must keep doing this over and over again. Overall themes we heard throughout the convention: -Gifted students must be creative producers -Teachers and schools need to ensure the engagement of gifted learners -Infuse critical & creative thinking into our programs and lessons -PreK-12 program are needed; gifted programs should not just start in grade 3 -Evaluation of student growth, evaluation of student growth, evaluation of student growth! -Every student deserves to learn everyday!
Page 23
Flexible Grouping Adapted from 5-Minute Professional Development, Center for Talent Development, Northwestern University
Flexible Grouping
Flexible grouping is a differentiated instructional strategy that responds to students' learning needs. The benefits include:
Flexible Grouping: Guidelines for Implementation: Follow these tips to ensure successful implementation of flexible grouping in your differentiated classroom:
•Allowing students who need more time for mastery to meet in a small group. •Allowing students who mastered information quickly to extend their learning. •Being flexible means that the students can work collaboratively or independently. •Preventing students from being labeled as part of the "high" or the "low" group. •Allowing students to work with a wide variety of peers. As an integral part of your differentiated classroom, flexible grouping will be an efficient use of your instructional time because you are able to address different learning goals for all students.
Flexible Grouping
-Determined by pre-assessment -Based on students' learning needs, interests, or readiness levels -Groups work on different activities -Occurs as needed -Grouping with the student's unique learning profile in mind
•Use pre-assessment and determine students' learning preferences to make flexible grouping most effective. •Ensure that all students are mixed, meaning students do not work with others who are most like themselves all the time. •Assign groups based on students' readiness levels, interests or learning styles. •Alternate assignments from teacher-directed to student-selected, when appropriate •Keep in mind that within a group, students may do best working independently. •Teach clear guidelines for working within a group, and reinforce positive group work.
Resource: Differentiating Instruction in the Regular Classrom by Diane Heacox
Ability Grouping
Cooperative Groups
-Determined by standarized test score -Based on achievement as measured by one test. -Groups do not change -Groups tend to work on similar activities -Occurs daily -Grouping only by one indicator of performance
-Determined by teacher or student choice -Based on teacher's discretion or students' learning preference -Groups change freuquently, often based on project timetable -Groups work on same task or one facet of the same task -Occurs when approrpiate for the task -Grouping for purpose of developing collaborative skills
Page 24
MINUTES OF BOARD MEETING NOVEMBER 2, 2013 10:00 a.m. Old Chicago, St. Cloud PRESENT: Sue Feigal-Hitch, Lori Habben, Marty Hartman, Sue Karp, Bill Keilty, Pam Pearson, Scott Robinson, Mary Ann Rotondi, Jo Tate, Lisa Worden AGENDA ITEMS Committee Reports Website Public Relations
• Friend of the Gifted
NOTES
• Conference and Foundation information is on the website There were two nominations: Bill Keilty Sue Feigal Hitch
• Discussion that these people have contributed much to the gifted community – within their school districts, metro, state, and national Motion to honor both of the nominated: Sue Karp Second: Jeanne Simmonds Motion approved.
• Position Paper
• Star of the North
Position paper on Gifted and the Common Core Standards was discussed. It will be rolled out at the state conference. There were 5 nominations. A committee will decide which one will receive the award. Those not selected to for the award will be listed as honorees. Former MEGT board members will be honored for the time they served the organization. They are:
• Sara Olson • Awards
• Sue Eggenberger • Angie Huhner
Newsletter Legislative Membership
• Kelly Fahrne • David Wolff is organizing the articles and all board members are submitting portions of the newsletter • Bill Keilty has contacted Al Franken and Amy Klobechar regarding the Talent Act. • Pam Pearson has made corrections and additions to list
Page 25
Conference
• We will celebrate that MEGT has been statewide for 25 years • In recognition of 25 years, present and past board members as well as founding board members will be noted • We will be working on recruiting people to serve on the board • Conference information will go out to various organizations in the state • There will be 40 breakout session choices • We are seeking corporate donations to sponsor parts of the conference • There will be a drawing for gift baskets valued at $25-$35 at the end of conference • The Silent Auction will again be held
Foundation
• Wine Social will be after keynote on Sunday • The Foundation promotes the MEGT organization and offers grant opportunities for teachers working with gifted learners • $4500 will be given out • Fund-raiser will be held at conference and in the spring
Regional Updates Old Business MEGT at the EdMN conference:
• About 200 people attended the presentation • There was a wide array of items at the booth New Business
• State Gifted Advisory Board Meeting – MARSS reporting regarding gifted is being discussed • The next meeting of the Advisory is Feb. 24 Future Meeting Dates February 9 and 11, 2014 - MEGT Conference Adjournment Meeting adjourned at 1:00 p.m.
Page 26
Minnesota Educators of the Gifted and Talented Board ArrowheaD Mary Ann Rotondi, President, Foundation Secretary 5807 W 8th St Duluth, MN 55807 Work: 218-724-9111 Home: 218-624-4111 Cell: 218-391-1230 E-mail:
[email protected]
MetrO Jo Tate, Secretary 11588 20th St N. Lake Elmo, MN 55042 Work: 651-351-8483 Cell: 651-216-6833 E-mail:
[email protected]
Sue Karp, Treasurer, Foundation Treasurer 2241 Co Rd 5 Carlton, MN 55718-8139 Cell: 218-340-9932 E-mail:
[email protected]
Sue Feigal-Hitch, Conference 17110 Judicial Rd Lakeville, MN 55044 Work: 952-975-8642 Home: 952-892-5032 Work E-mail:
[email protected] Home E-mail:
[email protected]
HeartlanD Jeanne Simmonds, Conference Box 355 Ironton, MN 56455 Home: 218-546-6742 E-mail:
[email protected]
Mid-Minnesota Lori Habben, Membership Assistant 410 Avon Ave Avon, MN 56310 Work: 320-356-7346 E-mail:
[email protected]
Lisa Worden, Position Paper, President Elect, Foundation 7779 Travis Trail Brainerd, MN 56401 Cell: 218-330-6764 E-mail:
[email protected] Valley Pam Pearson, Membership 7624 Terrace Dr NW Alexandria, MN 56308 Home: 320-846-0403 Cell: 320-760-5980 E-mail:
[email protected]
Gwen Briesemeister, Friends of the Gifted, Foundation 502 Elm Ave. Delano, MN 55328 Work: 763-972-3365 ext. 3031 Home: 763-972-6987 Work E-mail:
[email protected] Home E-mail:
[email protected]
HomesteaD David Wolff, Newsletter 401 3rd Ave NW Austin, MN 55912 Work: 507-460-1912 E-mail:
[email protected] Riverbend Marty Hartmann, Star of the North, Public Relations 11786 240th St W Belle Plaine, MN 56011 Cell: 952-215-2543 E-mail:
[email protected] Scott (John) Robinson 815 N 9th St. St. Peter, MN 56082 Work: 507-934-3260 x639 Fax: 507-934-1865 Home: 507-340-0448 E-mail:
[email protected]
MEMBER AT LARGE Bill Keilty, Legislative, Conference, Foundation President 7313 260th St. Wyoming, MN 55092 Work: 763-795-6686 Home: 651-462-5358 Home E-mail:
[email protected]
www. mnegt.org
HEADWATERS
arrowhead Mary Ann Rotondi Sue Karp VALLEY Pam Pearson
HEARTLAND Jeanne Simmonds Lisa Worden MID mINNESOTA Lori Habben Gwen Briesemeister METRO Sue Feigal-Hitch Jo Tate
PRAIRIE
RIVERBEND Marty Hartmann Scott Robinson
HOMESTEAD David Wolff
Challenging Gifted Lear ners Challenging Gifted Lear ners Challenging Gifted Lear ners Challenging Gifted Lear ners
Page 27
