NAGC Parenting for High Potential June 2011

Gifted Children and Divorce

RtI and the Gifted ChildWhat Every Parent Should Know

Developing your child’s gifts and talentsA publication of the national association for gifted children

June 2011

a note from the

editor

In April of 2011, as the last negotiations were taking place for the 2011 federal budget, the funding for the Jacob K. Ja-vits Gifted and Talented Students Education Act was elimi-nated—stricken from the budget. These monies provided support for The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented and demonstration grants across the United States. Although funding was limited in comparison to other federal education programs, symbolically it meant that the federal government continued to have a stake in gifted education and remained interested in the educational outcomes of this student population. As the last push came to keep Javits from receiving the proverbial axe, the support nationwide was simply not there to make U.S. Senators and Representa-tives sit up and take notice from their constituents. From in-terviews I’ve conducted with parents, the option to advocate for gifted children at the federal level often seems too far

removed from their own circumstances to feel as if it would make a difference and directly impact their own child.

However, a new opportunity to influence the national landscape regarding gifted education is emerging. Intro-duced by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and Sen. Robert Casey (D-PA), the TALENT Act has four main goals: (a) to make changes to assessment and accountability systems, (b) to increase professional development in gifted education, (c) to focus on underserved populations, and (d) to emphasize research and dissemination. What distinguishes this legisla-tion from Javits funding is the emphasis on professional de-velopment on the learning needs of gifted children. It would have a broader reach by requiring all schools and districts receiving education funds to include high-ability students in their spending plans. As most gifted children spend the majority of their day in regular education classrooms, targeted professional development could make a significant difference for this high-ability population at the local level, making advocacy much more relevant for individual fami-lies and children. A great deal of work still needs to be done in order to make this piece of legislation a reality. NAGC, working in collaboration with the Council for Exceptional Children, seeks to gain cosponsors for the bill in both the House and Senate. Parents and other interested individuals also can reach out to their U.S. Senators and Representatives. For more information, visit http://www.cec.sped.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home&CONTENTID=16414&TEMPLATE=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm&CAT=none or http://www.nagc.org/index.aspx?id=7804

In response to feedback from parents, PHP will be under-going some changes over the next few months. Look forward to the transformation in the September 2011 issue. Until then, have a wonderful, safe, and renewing summer.

Dr. Jennifer L. Jolly

[email protected]

PHP Parenting For High Potential

2

PublisherNAGC

Editor-in-ChiefDr. Jennifer L. JollyLouisiana State UniversityBaton Rouge, LA

Art Directorjml designs [email protected]

Parenting for High Potential is published quarterly and is distributed as a member-ship benefit by the National Association for Gifted Children (NAGC). The views expressed in the magazine are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of NAGC or its Board of Directors.

Copyright © 2011National Association for Gifted Children1331 H Street, NW, Suite 1001Washington, DC 20005202-785-4268www.nagc.org

Tracy Inman, Chair

Bowling Green, KY

Jane Clarenbach

NAGC

Carolyn Cooper

St. Louis, MO

Marcia Delcourt

Stamford, CT

Denise Drain

Indianapolis, IN

Ellen Fithian

Poquoson, VA

Stephanie Desmarias-

Georgiades

Tampa, FL

Benjamin Hebebrand

Palatine, IL

Michael Matthews

Charlotte, NC

Michelle Muratori

Baltimore, MD

Joan Smutny

Wilmette, IL

PHP Editorial Advisory Board

4 President’s Column Creative Families &

Family Creativity By Dr. Ann Robinson

12 Gifted Children and the Arts: Pro-viding Opportunities for All By Dr. Stephen T. Schroth & Dr. Jason A. Helfer

24 Advocacy Making the Gold Standard School a Reality By Dr. Julia A. Roberts & Tracy Inman

26 An Interview With . . . Sara Akbar By Nancy Green

29 ABCs of Being Smart . . . “B” By Dr. Joanne Foster

columns

6 Gifted Children and Divorce By John Dudley & Dr. Frances A. Karnes

16 RtI and the Gifted Child: What Every Parent Should Know By Michael Postma, Dr. Daniel Pe-ters, Barbara Gilman, & Kathi Kearney

features

PHP June 2011

3

c r e a t i v i t yBy Dr. Ann Robinson, NAGC President

Meet the Draper-Wolff family. Nat and Alex are actors, composers, and performance musicians who star in the Naked Brothers Band television show. Polly Draper, mother, is a writer and ac-tor who simultaneously receives awards for her skilled writing of episodes from the show on Nickelodeon, but who also protects her children’s opportunity to have a stable and regular family life in the real world. Michael Wolff, dad, is a jazz pianist and music producer who appears as the accordion-playing father in the television program, but who is clearly a very present dad in real life, too. Anyone meeting them would agree, they are delightful and down-to-earth. They are not only creative, but also a creative family.

What does the concept of the cre-ative family mean? From the example above, you might assume the creative family is one composed of artistically gifted individuals from the entertain-ment world. Certainly, the Draper-Wolff family fits that description, but creative

The role of the family in developing talent inspires discussion, concern, and interest. As a field, we have long been convinced that families are crucial in the talent development process. In fact, in addition to its Parent Day each year, the National Association for Gifted Children featured a creative family as the closing keynote session for the 56th Annual Conference St. Louis. It was a re-freshing glimpse into the complex world of a creative family. A year and a half on from hearing the parents speak to a Sunday morning crowd of educators, I continue to be captivated by their ap-proach to parenting and to the creative life in general.

Creative Families &Family Creativity


4

c r e a t i v i t y

families come in all shapes, sizes, and thrive in a variety of talent domains. The creativity of the Draper-Wolff fam-ily includes their artistic pursuits, but extends beyond those endeavors, too. In addition to their careers in the perform-ing arts, their approach to family life appears to be a creative effort for them as well.

Barbara Kerr has investigated the concept of the happy family and found that such families find a place for ev-eryone in the group, engage in interest-ing and active leisure pursuits, have a tendency to make mealtimes special with conversation, and document their own family traditions in photo albums and collections. She also comments that today’s happy families don’t necessar-ily look like the sit-com families of the 1950’s. Happy families aren’t necessarily intact, two-parent units with two chil-dren and goofy, but lovable neighbor-hood buddies.

What does seem to be important about families who foster creativity, happy families, or family creativity—is that the family works as a system. Par-ents influence children by providing opportunities; children, in turn, influ-ence parents by expressing or demon-strating interests. Families can enrich or limit informal learning opportuni-

ties. Predictably, creative families tend to enrich, not limit.

The reports of eminently creative adults who experienced dysfunctional family lives of cruelty and privation when they were young aren’t incorrect, but such disasters are not the only fam-ily patterns that encourage the develop-ment of creativity. Csikszentmihalyi’s study of 91 creative individuals from all walks of life—the arts, business, and public life—found that over half of them grew up in happy and stable families. That’s a comforting thought!

The key to developing everyday creativity in the family context appears to be a joint focus on the freedom of individuals within the family to engage fully their own particular interests and talents and the ability of the family to value their cohesiveness as a complex system. Families are greater than the sum of their parts; creative families find interesting and even amusing ways to multiply their mutual interests, to celebrate the unique history they have created for themselves, and to feel grateful for their obvious enjoyment of one another.

PHP June 2011

5

Gifted

Children and Divorce

By John Dudley & Dr. Frances A. Karnes


6

Divorce is often a contentious process with multiple issues to decide, especially in cases in which there are children involved. Divorce raises sev-eral legal issues when considering the well-being of children, including those who are gifted. These issues include school choice, child support, and even custody when considering the best interests of a gifted child.

School ChoiceThe seemingly simple issue of

where to send a child to school becomes much more complicated in divorce cases involving gifted stu-dents. One of the most basic deci-sions impacting a gifted child is that of schooling, which can range from enrolling a child in a gifted program to moving the child to another state to attend an entirely new school. Many divorce decrees contain provisions for deciding educational issues. Divorce decrees from the state of Connecticut often include stipulations that matters of gifted education must be discussed and decided upon by both parents.

In the case of Bergeron v. Bergeron (2009), for example, school choice was the key issue. Mr. and Mrs. Bergeron were married in 1992 and filed for divorce in 2004. The couple had two children, Ashley and Audrey. Both were involved in gifted programs at St. Joseph’s School. The couple re-ceived a joint custody agreement in 2005. The agreement stipulated that Mrs. Bergeron, now Ms. Raley, was to provide the primary residence for both children. Part of the agreement man-dated that any material change in the agreement should be made mutually.

After the divorce, Ms. Raley made plans to move the girls to First Baptist Church School. She claimed that it had a superior program for gifted students and also offered a greater number of Advanced Placement (AP) courses.

This move created conflict between Mr. Bergeron and Ms. Raley. She ap-pealed the final custody agreement, and Mr. Bergeron cross appealed. At issue was the choice of the school, the amount of child support, and the amount of time each parent got to spend with the children.

The most complex issue of the three was the choice of schools for the girls. Under Louisiana law, the domiciliary parent, in this case Ms. Raley, had the right to make all decisions impacting the welfare of their children. This right included school choice. However, the other parent had the right to appeal those decisions. Under such an appeal, it is presumed the domiciliary parent is correct until proven otherwise. The burden of proof lies with the nondo-miciliary parent. This is a high burden that parents of gifted students should consider when reaching a divorce settlement. Parents should have a clear idea of who gets to make the final deci-sion with regards to school choice.

Ms. Raley was unsatisfied with the level of education being provided at St. Joseph’s and began to look for other options. Ms. Raley stated that both children had been tested and received high enough scores to attend the lo-cal magnet school, but unfortunately, that school did not have any openings. She researched the other local schools and decided on First Baptist Church School. She was particularly impressed with its college preparatory classes and its participation in the Duke Talent Identification Program. Mr. Bergeron argued that St. Joseph’s had a good ed-ucational reputation and had been the girls’ longtime school. He also wanted the girls to attend a Catholic school, as he was Catholic. Since the burden of proof rested with Mr. Bergeron, one would assume that the court would side with Ms. Raley. However, the court found that there was a need to maintain

stability in the children’s lives. Accord-ingly, the court ruled that the children remain at St. Joseph’s.

Ms. Raley appealed this decision to the Louisiana appellate court. The standard of review in such cases was that the lower court must have clearly abused its discretion. The appel-late court gives the lower court wide discretion in such matters, and it ruled that the lower court had not abused its discretion. However, in a dissent-ing opinion, one judge stated that the court had clearly abused its discretion. He maintained that the Louisiana law granting a domiciliary parent the right to make decisions about schools was clear. He argued that the lower court

Parents should have a clear idea of who gets to make the final decision with regards to school choice.

PHP June 2011

7

had unfairly shifted the burden of proof to Ms. Raley. She was forced to prove that First Baptist was a better choice, and it should have fallen to Mr. Bergeron to prove that First Baptist was an unfit choice. Because this is a recent case, it could very easily see a further appeal. It also is illustrative of the fact that there are often multiple factors that come into play in argu-ments over divorce agreements. Both courts felt that providing the children with a stable environment was of more importance than the clear right of the domiciliary parent to choose her children’s school. Parents of gifted children should be mindful of the fact that the courts, as well as the parents, play as role in determining the fate of the children.

Placement in Gifted ProgramsThere are numerous educational

choices that go beyond school choice. Lombardo v. Lombardo (1993) con-cerned the choice to enroll in a gifted program. Maureen Lombardo and Charles Lombardo were divorced in 1985 and were awarded joint custody of their three children. Mr. Lombardo provided the primary residence. Their

youngest son was classified as gifted and talented based on a third-grade assessment exam and was recom-mended that he enroll in the gifted program at his current school. Mr. and Mrs. Lombardo disagreed wheth-er or not their son should be enrolled in the program. Mr. Lombardo was unhappy with their older son’s ex-perience with the program, whereas Mrs. Lombardo viewed the program as necessary for their younger son’s academic success.

They were unable to reach a compromise. Mrs. Lombardo filed for a court order to force their son’s enrollment into the program, and the trial court denied that motion. The court stated that the child was already thriving in a stable school environ-ment, and absent any evidence to the contrary, the decision was to rest with the parent who provided the primary residence. The burden of proof was placed squarely on Mrs. Lombardo to show that her son’s current school enrollment status was unfit.

Mrs. Lombardo appealed on the grounds that the divorce agreement awarded joint custody. In Michigan, parents with joint custody are sup-posed to come to a consensus on issues of general welfare for the children. Although there was some statutory and legal precedent to support the decision of the domiciliary parent, the appel-late court ruled that neither side bore the burden of proof. It vacated the trial court’s earlier decision and remanded the case back to the trial court. The court was instructed to allow evidence demonstrating the effectiveness and appropriateness of the gifted program at the new trial.

divorce decrees often include stipulations that matters of gifted education must be discussed and

decided upon by both parents.


8

Gifted Children and Child SupportThere are numerous educational

and enrichment opportunities for gifted children that cost money. From summer programs to early enrollment at college, the opportunities are vast. Which parent should pay for these opportunities and at what level are often key issues of con-tention in divorce proceedings.

The case of Malloy v. Malloy (1993) focused on the issue of early entrance to college. Mrs. Margaret Malloy and Dr. Mark Malloy were divorced in 1982. The divorce decree granted custody of the couple’s two children to Mrs. Mal-loy, and Dr. Malloy was ordered to pay child support. In addition, Dr. Malloy was to provide for both children’s col-lege education.

The Malloy’s daughter was identi-fied as profoundly gifted and excelled in school from an early age. In 1991, at the age of 12, she enrolled in a special program for gifted children at Mary Baldwin College in Virginia—a full collegiate program. Their daughter was expected to receive a bachelor’s degree in 1995. When Dr. Malloy began paying for her college tuition, room, and board, he stopped his child support pay-ments. He did, however, maintain his child support payments for his son. He insisted that the fees for college were substantially higher than his intended child support payments. Mrs. Malloy, now Ms. McEntire, tried to get the court to force Dr. Malloy to continue to pay for child support. The court denied the request, stating that the two had orally agreed upon the current financial ar-rangement in principle.

Ms. McEntire appealed, but the ap-pellate court did not find any substan-tial evidence to overturn the lower court’s ruling. Dr. Malloy was ordered

to continue to pay for his daughter’s college fees, and his child support pay-ments stopped. The court was silent as to his financial obligations once his daughter graduated from college at the age of 16.

The courts enjoy wide discretion in deciding child support arrange-ments. Farley v. Farley (1999) indicated that gifted education can be used to modify child support agreements. In this case, the court raised the amount of child support awarded for the sole reason of providing support for the child’s gifted programs.

Parents of gifted children need to consider the cost of gifted education pro-grams and other extracurricular activities in determining child support. The courts seem willing to take gifted education expenses into account when calculat-ing child support. However, it should be remembered that it is only one factor of many used to determine support, but one that should not be neglected.

Gifted Children and CustodyGifted education issues can even

play a role in deciding or modifying custody agreements. The two general doctrines applied by courts in custody cases are the tender years doctrine and the best interest of the child doctrine. The former implies that the custody of very young children should be given to the mother. However, many states have adopted more gender-neutral standards. The best interest of the child doctrine takes into account the holistic well-being of the child. This is an inexact science that attempts to balance various criteria, such as, the educational well-being of the child, and gifted education can be an issue under this factor.

In the case of Cintron v. Cintron (1999), gifted education ended up be-ing a determining factor in the custo-dy decision. Mr. and Mrs. Cintron were residing in Texas when they obtained an order for divorce. They had one child from their marriage. The divorce decree provided for joint custody, with Mr. Cintron providing the primary residence. The order maintained that both parents were to have a role in de-termining their daughter’s educational future, who was classified as academi-cally gifted.

After the divorce, both Mr. and Mrs. Cintron moved to Connecticut to live with their respective parents. Unable to find a decent job, Mr. Cintron moved to Massachusetts and remarried. During that time, their daughter resided with Mrs. Cintron. Mr. Cintron secured a place for their daughter at a school that provided gifted and talented program-ming upon getting his new job in Massachusetts. Mrs. Cintron objected to the distance that her daughter would be from her and maintained that she was already adjusted to life and school in Connecticut.

Mr. Cintron moved for an adjust-ment of the divorce decree. The court found that he could provide a good and stable home for their daughter. They also ruled that the geographical distance between the mother and father was not so large as to create an undue burden on the mother. The court placed special emphasis on the role of the gifted and talented program in decid-ing what was in the best interest of the child. Although gifted education was not the single determining factor, it was part of the overall decision.

The availability and benefit of gifted education services can be the factor

PHP June 2011

9

continued the default judgment against the mother and awarded cus-tody of the child to the father.

The mother petitioned the New York court to regain custody. Importantly, the court noted three separate times that the mother’s insistence on provid-ing a proper education for a gifted child was in the best interest of the child, while the father was ambivalent toward gifted education programming. The court’s final decision granted cus-tody to the mother, provided that she relocated to New York. Parents need to be aware that custody decisions rely on a series of factors, and providing gifted education opportunities is a factor that courts have been willing to consider.

The case of W.S. v. B.S. (2007) demonstrates that the mere presence of a gifted program is not always suf-ficient to determine custody arrange-ments. W.S. and B.S. were divorced in 1998. They had two children from this marriage. The older child, a daughter, participated in a gifted education pro-gram. The mother had custody of the children until 2006, when she decided to move to Pennsylvania without the consent of W.S. or the court. W.S. filed for custody and was awarded custody after B.S. failed to appear for the cus-tody hearing.

B.S. appealed to regain custody of her children. The court entertained the motion because it was the express wish of the children to live with their moth-er. However, the court ruled that all the other factors in deciding custody were in favor of the father. In particular, the court said that the only evidence the mother provided in support of a move to Pennsylvania was the eldest daugh-ter’s enrollment in a gifted program. However, the court stated that she did

that tips the scales in one parent’s fa-vor. The case of DER v. SLR (2008) illus-trates this point. DER, the mother, and SLR, the father, were married in May of 2002. They had one child, who was born in December of 2002. Due to the tumultuous nature of the relationship, the father filed for divorce in November

of 2003. However, the divorce action was stayed due to the father’s deploy-ment to Iraq. During this time, the mother had full custody of the child. The mother moved to California with the child before the divorce hearing was held, and then failed to attend the divorce hearing. The father was granted full custody of the child in New York by default in December of 2005.

However, the mother maintained physical custody of the child. While she had custody, the mother had the child tested and identified as gifted, enrolling her in a gifted program, which provided specialized attention for the child’s intellectual ability. In competing 2007 legal filings in New York and California, the California court ruled that the New York court had jurisdiction. The New York court

Parents need to be aware that custody decisions rely on a

series of factors, and providing gifted education opportunities

is a factor that courts have been willing to consider.


10

not provide evidence that the program was unique or that a similar program was not offered in Long Island. It is of particular importance to note that the court would have been willing to take into account the presence of a unique gifted educational opportunity in po-tentially awarding custody.

Recommendations for ParentsThe cases discussed offer sev-

eral lessons for parents. First, parents should try to come to an agreement about educational decisions in the divorce agreement—who has the au-thority to decide what school a child attends should be explicitly stated in the settlement. Second, parents need to consider educational expenses that are unique to gifted students when calculating child support. Most impor-tantly, parents need to be aware that a child’s giftedness can be an important part of divorce proceedings. Although there are many complex issues in any divorce, a child’s giftedness should not be ignored.

ConclusionGifted education issues are only

one of several factors that courts con-sider when deciding custody. However, it is equally important to realize that courts are willing to use gifted educa-tion issues as a factor in determining a child’s best interests. This impacts issues such as child support, school choice, and even custody in a divorce proceeding. Although the cases dis-cussed are not binding on any juris-diction, they serve as a good overview of some of the issues that courts are willing to consider in divorce decrees involving gifted children.

ResourcesChen, G. (2009) Going through a

divorce? How to ensure your child’s continued success in public schools. Public School Review. Retrieved from http://www.publicschoolreview.com/articles/156

Falk, C. (1987). Gifted children’s per-ception of divorce. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 11, 29–44.

Rimm, S. (2006). Keys to parenting the gifted. Scottsdale, AZ: Great Poten-tial Press.

ReferencesBergeron v. Bergeron 6. So. 3d 948

(2009)

Cintron v. Cintron, Superior Ct. Conn. LEXIS 9783144 (1999)

DER v. SLR, 867 N.Y.S.2d 374 (2008)

Farley v. Farley, Superior Ct. Conn. LEXIS 0538540 (1999)

Lombardo v. Lombardo, 202 Mich. App. 151; 507 N.W.2d 788 (1993)

Malloy-McEntire v. Malloy, Ark. App. LEXIS 239 (1993)

WS v. BS, 856 N.Y.S.2d 27; 238 N.Y.L.J. 125 (2007)

Authors’ Note:John Dudley, J.D., is a 2006 gradu-

ate of the University of Chicago Law School. He is currently pursuing a mas-ter’s degree in political science at the University of Southern Mississippi. He is a graduate assistant at the Frances A. Karnes Center for Gifted Studies.

Frances A. Karnes, Ph.D., is a distin-guished professor at the University of Southern Mississippi and is the direc-tor of the Frances A. Karnes Center for Gifted Studies. Among her publications are 50 coauthored or coedited books and 216 professional articles. She has served as president of The Associa-tion for the Gifted and the Mississippi Association for the Gifted, and has served on the board of the National As-sociation for Gifted Children (NAGC). Within gifted education, her areas of focus are legal issues, leadership, and gifted children with disabilities.

PHP June 2011

11

Knowledge of English/language arts, mathematics, and the sciences are considered important in the develop-ment of gifted children. Familiarity with the arts—music, the visual arts, dance, creative writing, and theatre—is, for many, a more difficult proposition. Budget cutbacks have marginalized the art offerings in numerous school districts across the country. Some gifted children live in areas without a rich arts infrastructure for support. Other gifted children come from families that provide few personal resources to assist in their quest. Still other gifted chil-dren have expressed a desire to follow a career path, such as law, medicine, or engineering, that seems disconnected from the arts. Parents, teachers, admin-istrators, and others interested in gifted children’s development often face the same questions: Why worry about the arts when my daughter wants to study medicine? How can I help my son with

music when I know little about the subject myself? What sorts of activities can best support gifted children in the arts? Whom can I turn to for assistance? Where are supports for gifted children who wish to explore the arts?

Fortunately, many within gifted education continue to advocate and provide opportunities for the arts. Although much of education’s current focus deals with standards, assess-ment, and prescriptive remedies, some envision a different world, a world that can be molded through exposure to the arts. Certainly the arts rely upon teachers who are passionate about their inclusion in the curriculum. Maxine Greene (1995) noted that, “in many respects, teaching and learn-ing are matters of breaking through barriers—of expectations, of boredom, of predefinition. To teach, at least in one dimension, is to provide persons with the knacks and know-how they

By Dr. Stephen T. Schroth

& Dr. Jason A. Helfer

Providing Opportunities for All

Gifted Children & the


12

need in order to teach themselves” (p. 14). Using a combination of sources from general, multicultural, gifted, and arts education, instructional experi-ences and activities can be fashioned to combine exemplary instruction with the arts for gifted learners. Specifical-ly, arts experience for gifted students must be concept-based, rich in discus-sion, and ratchet upward to allow for students’ ascending levels of intellec-tual demand. Ideally, such curriculum will also allow exploration of both the student’s own art and the work of others who create through projects that examine the disciplines studied. Finally, the arts must be used in ways that empower students and assist them to notice and perceive society’s “obstacles to becoming” (Greene, 1995, p. 13). Parents, teachers, and other ad-vocates for the gifted must explore the variety of avenues available through which the arts may be accessed and determine which are the best fit for individual gifted children.

Allowing gifted children to share their artistic endeavors with an audi-ence can be a tremendous motivator. Sharing children’s artistic output can be informal, such as when a class-room or school displays or showcases children’s visual art, creative writing, music, dance, or theater efforts for a wider audience than their classmates to observe. Sharing also can be more formal, such as competitions that recognize exemplary artistic work. For example, the Torrance Legacy Creative Writing Awards acknowledge outstand-ing children’s creative writing and visual arts efforts for those enrolled in grades 2–12.

After gifted students reach a certain level of proficiency, they may need private lessons to progress further. Un-fortunately, monetary considerations often preclude many deserving gifted children from receiving the lessons

they need to allow them to reach their full potential. To that end, a variety of organizations have been founded to help children and their families obtain individual instruction. MusicLink Foun-dation, which operates in 36 states, negotiates with individual music teach-ers to reduce the price of music lessons from their normal rate by at least half. MusicLink Foundation provides many gifted children the opportunity to take lessons that would otherwise be beyond

their grasp and also makes available a variety of scholarships, discounts, and other valuable resources to both gifted children and music teachers.

Often gifted children’s talents and abilities are greater than our own. Teachers and parents may feel over-whelmed when trying to provide access to music for gifted children. Most opera companies and symphony orchestras however, provide outreach services. Music outreach is often focused in two ways. First, these organizations pro-vide curricular materials to schools in order to prepare students and teachers for a live performance. In many cases, the live performances take place at the “home stage” of the organizations. Sec-ond, these institutions may construct and make available online materials that serve as a general introduction to the art form. The Lyric Opera of Chicago and the Metropolitan Opera,

arts experience for gifted students must be concept-based, rich in discussion, and ratchet upward to allow for students’ ascending levels of intellectual demand.

PHP June 2011

13

for instance, have numerous curricular materials for various operas. The ma-terials can be downloaded for free and the musical examples are also available on their websites.

Gifted children’s appreciation of vi-sual art and the quality of the art they produce is assisted greatly by trips to art museums and galleries. Such occa-sions are relatively easy to arrange for teachers and parents who live in urban areas, but more difficult for those who live elsewhere or who are faced with a limited budget. Although nothing pro-vides children with appreciation of the complexities and techniques artists use like a firsthand viewing of their work, many websites have been devel-oped by art museums that provide the next best thing. Great collections such as those of the Art Institute of Chi-cago, the Metropolitan Museum of Art, and others have been placed online so that they can be viewed anywhere. Recently, the Minneapolis Institute of Arts and the Walker Art Center have created ArtsConnectEd, a website that provides more than 100,000 resources, including works of art, audio, video, texts, and an assortment of interactive tools. Two of these tools are especially useful. One, Art Finder, allows users to search these collections by key-words and filter searches by medium, culture, or artist’s name. Clicking on individual works of art allows users to zoom in or launch the work in full-screen mode. Information about each work is provided, and users can leave comments. Another, Art Collector, al-lows users to save, customize, present, and share works of art gathered in Art Finder. Art Collector incorporates video, audio, and text to create presen-tations that can be saved and shared. The website provides access a variety of Art Collector sets created by mu-seum personnel and other educators.

Dance and theater are often over-looked in the classroom, yet gifted children benefit from exposure to these disciplines. Additionally, dance and theater often provide alternative interpretations or representations of literature, historical events, scientific concepts, or topical issues. Although few schools offer formal programs in these areas, parents and teachers of gifted children can find a wealth of ma-terial online. The Joffrey Ballet and the Guthrie Theater both have a selection of lesson plans, instructional materials, and other tools on their websites.

Economic hardships have impacted the arts, reducing or eliminating pro-grams in some areas. Despite this, free and open access materials are avail-able to assist gifted children’s teachers and parents in making the arts avail-able in a meaningful way. The visual arts, music, creative writing, dance, and theatre can be an important part of any gifted child’s life with a bit of effort from the adults in their lives. Indeed, with the wealth of materials available from top-flight arts organiza-

Organizations That Support Gifted Children & the ArtsTorrance Legacy Creative Writing Awardshttp://www.ststesting.com/cw_2011.html

MusicLink Foundationhttp://www.musiclinkfoundation.org

Lyric Opera of Chicagohttp://www.lyricopera.org/education/index.aspx

The Metropolitan Operahttp://www.metoperafamily.org/metopera/ about/education

ArtsConnectEdhttp://www.artsconnected.org

Joffrey Ballethttp://joffrey.org/community/programs

Guthrie Theaterhttp://www.guthrietheater.org/learn


14

tions so readily available, one might argue that the arts have never been so accessible as they are right now. Par-ents and teachers must work to ensure that all gifted children are able to have the arts enrich their learning.

ReferenceGreene, M. (1995). The dialectic of

freedom. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Authors’ Note:Stephen T. Schroth, Ph.D., is

chair of the NAGC Arts Network. Dr. Schroth, an assistant professor of educational studies at Knox College in Galesburg, IL, is the author of more than 175 books chapters, articles, and other publications. He served as a classroom teacher, gifted coordinator, and arts prototype school coordina-tor for a decade in the Los Angeles Unified School District. His research interests include the development of artistically talented students, ef-fective instructional and leadership practices, and working with English language learners.

Jason A. Helfer, Ph.D., is chair of the Educational Studies Department at Knox College in Galesburg, IL. Editor of NAGC’s Arts Network newsletter, Inspiration, Dr. Helfer’s research inter-ests include arts education and aesthet-ics, curriculum and teaching, and the philosophy of education. With Stephen Schroth, he has recently been working on developing curricular materials for the Lyric Opera of Chicago.

For more information about NAGC’s Arts Network, visit http://www.nagc.org/index.aspx?id=1415

Gifted children’s appreciation of visual art and the quality of the art they produce is assisted greatly by trips to art museums and galleries.

PHP June 2011

15

RtI and the

By Michael Postma, Dr. Daniel Peters, Barbara Gilman, & Kathi Kearney

What Every Parent Should KnowGifted Child:


16

Response to Intervention is a regular education initiative, designed to provide additional learning support within all classrooms for students who fail to respond appropriately to regular instruction. By federal law, mandated RtI teams plan and supervise supports for students who are “not responding” to the grade-level curriculum by per-forming below average. RtI is the first response to such special needs before other types of services (e.g., special education) are invoked. If successful, RtI interventions may eliminate the need for further services. If such inter-ventions prove inadequate, RtI plays a pivotal role in identifying children for further services.

Although Response to Intervention strategies are legally mandated only for

children performing below grade level, the RtI model has been extended in some places to identify and serve chil-dren with advanced learning needs—those performing above grade level. The notion is that if a team of teachers can find struggling students through ongoing classroom assessment and create viable options for them, such a team also should be able to identify students in need of advancement and differentiate accordingly. In this way, RtI can function as a comprehensive system of classroom interventions to meet a variety of student needs, includ-ing those of gifted students and the twice-exceptional (i.e., 2e; gifted chil-dren with disabilities). The RtI model has thus been promoted as a vehicle for placing gifted education into the realm

Education has seen its share of trends and movements that

either help or hinder the optimal development of the gifted

child. In 2001, Congress passed No Child Left Behind (NCLB)

in a concerted effort to reach children who were not meeting

minimal standardized goals of achievement. Response to

Intervention (RtI) is yet another approach to ensure services

for children who demonstrate special needs in the classroom.

Neither NCLB nor RtI were designed with gifted children in

mind. However, NCLB had sweeping ramifications for how

money was spent in schools, and RtI may govern how gifted

children—with and without accompanying disabilities—are

identified and served.

PHP June 2011

17

of regular education, instead of offering supplementary services, and for accom-modating both the strengths and weak-nesses of twice-exceptional children in the same environment.

Most school districts have either finalized their RtI structures or are do-ing so now, so the form RtI programs will take may already be evident in local schools. In an era of increased fiscal scrutiny, many districts have cut programs for which RtI could poten-tially be a substitute, including some entire gifted and talented departments, along with the knowledge and experi-ence that goes with them. Given the right adaptations for gifted children and appropriate teacher training, the RtI model has potential to fill the vacuum and increase appropriate dif-ferentiation for all children. However, emerging RtI programs raise concerns about the methodology employed in identifying and serving both gifted and twice-exceptional students. With RtI approaches as yet untested for the gifted, parents of gifted students need to monitor their children’s progress

with a clear understanding of how RtI typically works.

Based on the notion that all children should receive high-quality classroom instruction (the first tier of interven-tion), RtI identifies children who fail to respond successfully to that instruc-tion—they perform below grade-level expectations—and provides additional tiers of intervention to assist them. For example, a child still struggling with reading after typical instruction may be identified for additional targeted help with reading—a second tier of interven-tion. If the second tier intervention is successful, subsequent regular instruc-tion with the class may be adequate. However, if the child continues to struggle, a third tier of more focused intervention is offered. Under RtI, teachers or teams—with or without spe-cial education professionals—identify a child’s needs through ongoing class-room assessment and apply additional tiers of intervention as needed. How is the gifted child, with or without dis-abilities, likely to be affected?

RtI for the Twice-Exceptional ChildCrucial to gifted students is the

increasing adoption of the RtI model to meet the needs of twice-exceptional students, who are both gifted and dis-abled in one or more areas of learning, processing, attention, social, and emo-tional/behavioral concerns. In most schools, such difficulties are now first evaluated in the classroom through an RtI approach, instead of through as-sessment by school psychologists and other relevant specialists for special education services. If RtI interventions are offered to address the problem and prove insufficient, then special edu-cation services are sought under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEA 2004), with RtI providing the primary docu-mentation of need.

Crucial to gifted students is the increasing adoption of the RtI

model to meet the needs of twice-exceptional students, who are

both gifted and disabled in one or more areas of learning.


18

Changes in the Identification of Disabilities

IDEA 2004 redefined how the na-tion’s schools should systematically identify and remediate the learning de-ficiencies of our children in accordance with RtI. Children with specific learn-ing disabilities (SLDs) were newly de-fined as having deficits in oral expres-sion, listening comprehension, written expression, basic reading skills, reading fluency skills, reading comprehension, mathematics calculation, or mathemat-ics problem solving, as evidenced by below-grade-level performance. This new approach circumnavigated the IDEA 1995, which defined a learning-disabled child as one who achieves at a significantly lower level than his or her ability would predict. In assessment terms, an SLD previously could be diagnosed if the child scored signifi-cantly lower on an individual achieve-ment test in some area of academic achievement (e.g., reading) than he or she scored on an ability or IQ test. The numerical discrepancy documented the degree to which the child was affected by the disability. Such a discrepancy was, and continues to be, one of the primary methods of detecting a learn-ing disability in a gifted child. How-ever, IDEA 2004, stated that schools must not require a substantial score discrepancy. Although schools may still consider test score discrepancies to diagnose SLDs under IDEA 2004, some states no longer allow their use.

Can RtI Improve Services for Twice-Exceptional Children?

Many gifted advocates have em-braced the RtI model for the 2e child because it allows accommodations for both strengths and weaknesses, and combats the misconception that a child can be either gifted or learning disabled, but not both. In addition, RtI allows teachers to identify a problem

quickly and address it, rather than wait-ing for the child to show the required score discrepancy—essentially waiting for the child to fail.

However, learning disabilities in gifted children can be subtle. Under RtI, teachers who may not have an ad-equate understanding of the traits that commonly characterize the 2e learner bear considerable responsibility for both diagnosing weaknesses and ad-dressing them. Although teachers will receive training in RtI, will they receive instruction in how to identify gifted children who may be underperforming in their classrooms? Twice-exceptional children often achieve at an average level in their weakest curricular areas due to strong compensatory skills, or masking, and appear to teachers to be progressing normally. Most RtI struc-tures are designed to identify only children performing below average. Yet, gifted children who score average usually exhibit a variety of learning difficulties not seen in typical stu-dents. For example, it takes a toll on 2e students to continually use their reasoning ability to compensate for weaknesses. They fatigue more quickly, experience more stress associated with schoolwork, and show variability in their performance when they are ill or overloaded. Parents must provide con-siderably more support to 2e children just to ensure they meet average perfor-mance expectations. Will such charac-teristics be recognized as symptoms of twice-exceptionality, or will the 2e child be viewed as “bright but lazy”?

Of even greater concern is the move-ment by some RtI advocates to elimi-nate any use of the discrepancy model of identifying a specific learning disabil-ity, as some states have done. Thus, the one approach that could determine that a child is twice-exceptional—with both gifted reasoning strengths and a signifi-cant discrepancy in academic achieve-

PHP June 2011

19

ment necessitating intervention—would be eliminated. Without the use of test score discrepancies, a gifted child who is reading at grade level (≥ 25th percen-tile) is considered to be achieving at ap-propriate levels despite having an IQ in the very superior range (≥98th percen-tile). In the states that still allow the use of test score discrepancies, a teacher or team can request individual assessment within the RtI framework to explore underachievement (usually a third-tier intervention); however, educators must suspect a problem to do so. Will individ-ual assessment be utilized when needed to clarify a child’s needs and prevent the 2e child from being missed?

Private examiners of gifted children report increased testing requests for 2e children who are struggling in school, but who have been denied services because they are perceived by teachers as doing fine. In Colorado, a state that has eliminated the use of test score discrepancies, the number of school psychology positions has also been re-duced, thus curtailing the state’s ability to find 2e children in a way that cannot be quickly reversed. Budget cuts during times of recession make such decisions attractive to states; however, they place families of 2e children in a Catch-22 situation. If denied services, and even private comprehensive assessment data is disallowed by schools, families have little basis for appeal and the right to due process is undermined.

Comprehensive individual as-sessment becomes essential when a disability, or second exceptionality, is suspected in a gifted child. An RtI approach alone may fail to provide the necessary intervention, and neglect to alert parents of a problem, before a cycle of failure begins. Yet, compre-hensive assessment can identify it quickly. Providing a reading tutor can be pivotal for a gifted child with a read-ing disability and can prevent years of

academic struggles. Interestingly, re-quiring a child with an IQ score of 135 to score lower than average in reading (below 90) to qualify for services under RtI requires a far greater score discrep-ancy (more than three standard devia-tions) than was previously required un-der IDEA 1995—and lengthens the time until services can be provided, instead of shortening it. This inequity for gifted children has been largely overlooked in conceptualizations of how to include the gifted in RtI.

For twice-exceptional children who are successfully identified through RtI as having disabilities, classroom teachers will need to understand the intricacies involved in educating unique and diverse gifted children. The use of a strongly remedial approach when addressing deficiencies can frustrate and disengage the gifted child from the learning process. The authors’ combined experience working with gifted children has revealed the need to support their strengths first—offering sufficient com-plexity, pacing, and challenge—while accommodating student weaknesses second, as gently as possible.

IDEA 2004 utilizes RtI as a means of identifying and addressing specific learning disabilities; however, some schools have expanded its scope to include gifted children with specific conditions such as autism spectrum disorders (ASD) and Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). Com-prehensive assessment by specialists is critical for such complex diagnoses, invaluable to guide interventions and accommodations in school, and should not be replaced by RtI. Some 2e chil-dren have been denied accommoda-tions because they do not appear to teachers to be “impaired enough.”

RtI philosophy also is affecting 504 Plans. Provided under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 504 Plans serve many children who do


20

not qualify for remediation or instruc-tional services under IDEA 2004 by mandating classroom accommoda-tions such as extra time, preferential seating, or the use of a keyboard. Pre-viously, 504 Plans were available with reasonable evidence of a disability; however, some children recently have been turned down because they are “not below average” or because test data supporting the disability cannot be used. Section 504 Plans extend into college and the work place. If the 504 Plan is denied for a young child with disabilities due to such RtI restric-tions, the chance of a child receiving any support later in school is dimin-ished because it was not needed in the lower grades. Furthermore, the failure to provide formal classroom accom-modations affects requests for accom-modations on standardized tests, such as College Board exams, which require not only a recent assessment before the test is taken, but also a history of formal accommodations.

RtI for All Gifted ChildrenThe RtI model, with its focus on

daily interventions in each and every classroom, has the potential to offer all gifted students consistent, differenti-ated instructional strategies without requiring the student to have been previously labeled as gifted. However, identifying gifted students through high achievement has always had limitations and misses many. Because challenging such students appropri-ately is essential to their future success, supplementary identification approach-es, not just RtI, must be preserved to identify gifted students and ensure classroom teachers address their needs.

It is hoped that the application of the RtI model to the provision of services for gifted and 2e children will increase teacher awareness of diverse gifted characteristics and curricular

needs, and dispel myths about gifted students that too often limit their op-tions in schools. Gifted children are not all the same; many have problems, and they need extra support.

What Can Parents Do?Parent advocates need to monitor

RtI implementation in schools. If an RtI framework strengthens classroom identification of learning needs and improves differentiation—without miss-ing gifted and twice-exceptional chil-dren—gifted education will move a step forward. Robust school programs that ensure multiple assessments of gifted-ness (not just through RtI), maintain a child’s access to individual assessment to clarify needs, and adapt RtI criteria

The RtI model, with its focus on daily interventions in each and every classroom, has the potential to offer all gifted students consistent, differentiated instructional strategies, without requiring the student to have been previously labeled as gifted.

PHP June 2011

21

to identify 2e children appropriately (looking not just at below average chil-dren) are most likely to succeed.

However, if a gifted child’s advanced learning needs are overlooked and op-tions are out of reach, parents need to advocate for more appropriate program-ming. If there are substantial discrepan-cies in a child’s academic performance that suggest learning disabilities, or if other disorders are suspected, com-prehensive individual assessment is essential to explore deficits and guide intervention. If a child shows evidence of disability and the RtI process has failed to recognize it or provide success-ful interventions, the child has the right to a timely initial evaluation for special education services. A recent memoran-dum from the United States Department of Education states:

It has come to the attention of the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) that, in some instances, local educational agencies (LEAs) may be using Response to Intervention (RtI) strategies to delay or deny a timely ini-tial evaluation for children suspected of having a disability. States and LEAs have an obligation to ensure that evalu-ations of children suspected of having a disability are not delayed or denied because of implementation of an RtI strategy (Musgrove, 2011, pg. 1).

Although IDEA 2004 requires states to use RtI as part of the comprehen-sive evaluation process for determin-ing specific learning disabilities, RtI cannot constitute the entire process. States that have terminated their use of test score discrepancies substantially restrict a child’s access to compre-hensive, individual evaluation. If such assessment is not available in a child’s school, private assessment and thera-peutic interventions may be a parent’s only choice to explore and address disabilities. However, some schools are refusing to consider such assessment

data to guide services or when a denial of services is appealed. By federal law, test score discrepancies can still be used to diagnose learning disabilities but are not required. The following “Final Rules” on the implementation of IDEA 2004 are available in the Federal Register (the “comment” raises the question and the “discussion” deliv-ers the official answer from the U.S. Department of Education):

Comment: Many commenters stated that the elimination of dis-crepancy models would result in an inability to identify children with SLD [specific learning disability] who are gifted. One commenter stat-ed that a scatter of scores should be used to identify children with SLD who are gifted.

Discussion: Discrepancy models are not essential for identifying chil-dren with SLD who are gifted. How-ever, the regulations clearly allow discrepancies in achievement do-mains, typical of children with SLD who are gifted, to be used to identify children with SLD. (U.S. Department of Education, 2006, p. 46647)

A student has the right by federal law to needed accommodations for disabilities even if participating in advanced or accelerated (i.e., gifted) programs. Likewise, a student receiving accommodations for disabilities has the right to be considered for advanced or accelerated programs that are other-wise appropriate. Participation in one does not restrict participation in the other (Monroe, 2007).

Clearly, RtI and IDEA 2004 policy changes are affecting 2e students now. Whether or not RtI programs ulti-mately direct all gifted education—and can be successful—is unclear. Substan-tial differences are apparent in the ways RtI programs are developing in


22

different areas. Change is the singular certainty, exacerbated by dwindling school budgets.

Because collaboration between par-ents and schools is emphasized in RtI models, it is a good time for parents of gifted and 2e students to ask questions and provide generous input. How is RtI being incorporated in your school? What type of gifted and 2e identifi-cation models are being used? Are teachers receiving staff development in gifted and talented issues? Are gifted experts a part of your district’s RtI team? Discuss these issues with school personnel. If you have sought help or evaluation from outside professionals, share it with your school. Many edu-cators report considerable confusion about the rules they must follow, and significant problems for students now may warrant early and critical policy changes in schools. If RtI specialists, gifted educators, and parents collabo-rate, RtI programs that truly support gifted education are more likely to develop and succeed.

ReferencesU.S. Department of Education. (2006).

Final rules on the implementation of IDEA 2004. Retrieved from http://idea.ed.gov/download/finalregula-tions.pdf

Monroe, S. (2007, December 26). Dear Colleague letter: Access by students with disabilities to accelerated pro-grams. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/let-ters/colleague-20071226.pdf

Musgrove, M. (2011, January 21). Memo-randum: A response to intervention (RtI) process cannot be used to delay-deny an evaluation for eligibility under the Individuals with Disabili-ties Education Act (IDEA). Retrieved from http://www.rti4success.org/pdf/RTI%20Memo_1-21-11r.pdf

Authors’ Note:Michael Postma, M.A., currently

coordinates High Potential Services for Minnetonka Public Schools, MN. He also runs the Minnetonka Naviga-tor Program, a school for highly gifted students. Postma presents regularly on several educational issues and has authored a number of articles, includ-ing Benny and Me, a story of parenting children with Asperger’s syndrome.

Dan Peters, Ph.D., is a licensed psychologist and co-founder and clinical director of Summit Center in Walnut Creek, CA, specializing in the assessment, consultation, and treat-ment of gifted and twice-exceptional (2e) learners and their families. Dr. Peters presents regularly at state and national conferences on giftedness, twice-exceptionalities, and overcoming anxiety.

Barbara (Bobbie) Gilman, M.S., is associate director of the Gifted De-velopment Center in Denver, CO. Gil-man authored Academic Advocacy for Gifted Children: A Parent’s Complete Guide (2008) and Challenging Highly Gifted Learners (2008). She also chairs NAGC’s Assessments of Giftedness SIG. She also chairs NAGC’s Assess-ments of Giftedness Special Interest Group.

Kathi Kearney, M.A.Ed., currently teaches gifted students at the Knowl-ton School in Berwick, ME. She also is a professional associate with the Gifted Development Center in Denver, CO, teaches online courses in gifted education for the University of Colo-rado at Colorado Springs, and is a past chair of the Conceptual Foundations Network of NAGC.

PHP June 2011

23

AdvocacyMaking the Gold Standard School a RealityBy Dr. Julia Link Roberts and Tracy Ford Inman

In our last column, we described a Gold Standard School – a place in which all children thrive including the gifted and talented. The Checklist for a Gold Standard School highlights the main characteristics of such a school (see pg. 25) including a focus on con-tinuous progress, talent development, policies that remove the learning ceil-ing, and ongoing professional develop-ment. Of course, envisioning the goal (i.e., a Gold Standard School) is the first step, but how do you make that a reality for your child’s school? That’s where the basic steps of advocacy come in.

You must begin with finding kin-dred spirits, others who believe in the goal of a Gold Standard School. In fact, the more substantial the number is, the more powerful the results are. It’s quite easy for decision-makers to ignore a lone parent or a small group of advo-cates; it’s another story, however, when they are dealing with 10, 25, or more:

1 Advocate = A Fruit Cake 2 Advocates = Fruit Cake and Friend 3 Advocates = Troublemakers 5 Advocates = Let’s Have a Meeting 10 Advocates = We’d Better Listen 25 Advocates = Our Dear Friends 50 Advocates = A Powerful Organization

Where do you find people to be part of the “powerful organization” or be “dear friends”? Look around you. Chances are you’ve had conversations with other parents who are concerned that there isn’t enough challenge for their children, that their children are not making continuing progress. Talk to your child to find out who else is working off grade level or participat-ing in gifted services. Their parents could very well be having the same thoughts as you. Look at parents of children involved in activities such as Science Olympiad, Future Problem Solving, and FIRST Lego League, too. Don’t focus solely on parents though. Educators and administrators or even people without a direct connection to the school may very well be kindred spirits. Please don’t neglect your local and state gifted associations; these organized advocacy groups are full of like-minded individuals! And your belonging to those organizations cer-tainly increases their lobbying power. Once you gather or find the group, it’s time for the next step.

The next step is crafting the mes-sage that you want to express. The Gold Standard School is that message —in particular, the idea that you want your child’s school to be a place where

everyone thrives—even the gifted child. The more positive you are, the more open ears tend to be: you are looking out for all children, not just your own child. Moreover, you also can articulate specific characteristics of a Gold Stan-dard School. The Gold Standard School should be your group’s mantra so that there is strong, unified voice sending the same message.

Once you have your advocacy group and everyone adheres to the same message, it’s time to communicate that message in an effective way. This mes-sage is not only informative —you’re ex-plaining what a Gold Standard School is—but it is also persuasive: you want decision-makers to make your child’s school a Gold Standard one. Be sure to have ample support for your wishes. Know district and state policies and regulations concerning gifted children. Be current with gifted education trends and research—www.nagc.org is a great place to start. You must be ready to answer questions and support your points. Once you’re sure about your purpose, you now need to focus on the audience. Who are the decision-makers and the decision-making bodies? Look to the school administration, of course, but don’t neglect teacher leaders, counselors, or specialized committees


24

who have influence on decisions. Think about the instructional leaders in the school. Know your audi-ence. Then, when it’s time to deliver the message, use your best communication skills such as active listen-ing and making eye contact. And be ready to deliver the same messages over and over again. Persistence is key to effective advocacy.

Another key to advocacy in gifted education is looking ahead. So often parents focus on this year’s teacher for this school year. When you do that, you must fight the same battle each year, some more suc-cessfully than others. What you should do is focus on the next level. If your child is in a primary grade, what Gold Standard characteristics do you see in the inter-mediate grades? If your child is in elementary school, what is being done to make the middle school a Gold Standard one? Ideally, once a district has one Gold Standard School, the bar is set high for other schools in the district so that other schools want to adopt Gold Standard practices. Just imagine the impact a Gold Standard district could have!

Your child has every right to make continu-ous progress every day (Remember NAGC’s Bill of Rights). As a student in a Gold Standard School, your child should thrive. But Gold Standard Schools certainly aren’t the norm. Do something about that. Be an effective advocate for your child. Work with decision-makers to make your child’s school a Gold Standard one.

ResourcesNAGC. (2009). Gifted children’s bill of rights. Re-

trieved from http://www.nagc.org/uploadedFiles/PHP/Bill%20of%20Rights.pdf

Roberts, J. L., & Inman, T. F. (2006, March). Effective advocates: Find kindred spirits. Parenting for High Potential, 25.

Roberts, J. L., & Inman, T. F. (2006, June). Effective advocates: Craft your message. Parenting for High Potential, 24-25.

Roberts, J. L., & Inman, T. F. (2006, September). Effec-tive advocates: Communicate effectively. Parenting for High Potential, 8-9.

Roberts, J. L., & Inman, T. F. (2009, December). Advo-cacy: The importance of joining your state gifted association. Parenting for High Potential, 9-10.

Roberts, J. L., & Inman, T. F. (2010, December). Ad-vocacy: A checklist to guide your advocacy for a gold standard school. Parenting for High Potential, 21-23.

Characteristic 1: Focus on Continuous Progress1.1 The school mission statement specifies that every child

will realize his potential or each child will make continuous progress.

1.2 Preassessment is routine and establishes the interests, preferred ways of learning, and levels of readiness of all students.

1.3 Grouping for instructional purposes is a standard practice in order to facilitate all children (remember that includes gifted children) learning at appropriately challenging levels. Most groupings are flexible to allow students to be regrouped as the level of readiness changes with different content or top-ics as well as when interest shifts into high gear.

1.4 Assessment is ongoing to see that all children are learn-ing. This type of assessment is called formative, and it is important because it monitors progress to make certain that a child is neither practicing skills incorrectly nor misunder-standing content.

1.5 Lessons are differentiated to match the level of challenge to the needs of individual students or clusters of students. Differentiated learning experiences are not “just different” nor are they simply more of the same.

Characteristic 2: Talent Development2.1 Opportunities in a variety of content and talent areas are

sought out, announced, and encouraged.

2.2 Achievements in a variety of content and talent areas are recognized and celebrated.

Characteristic 3: Policies that Re-move the Learning Ceiling3.1 A policy for acceleration is in place.

3.2 A policy for performance assessment is established.

3.3 A policy for educational enhancement is adopted.

3.4 Policies and practices do not inhibit continuous progress.

Characteristic 4: Ongoing Profes-sional Development4.1 Professional development about gifted education and talent

development is embedded throughout a school year.

Checklist for a Gold Standard School

PHP June 2011

25

Editor’s Note:Oracle has 115,000 employees world-wide with 40,000 in the United States. NG: Sara, what do you do for Oracle, and what attracted you to public policy/government af-fairs work?

SA: My current government affairs portfolio is global education and workforce policy. I work to educate and inform government officials about the company and the issues we see in creating a competitive workforce.

I’ve always liked puzzles, and I think I thrive in government affairs work be-cause each day I’m looking at an issue or problem from about eight differ-ent angles and putting them together into one picture. I’m constantly taking Oracle’s policy agenda and finding the match with counterpart organizations. Sometimes the overlap is obvious, and sometimes it’s not. I have a curiosity about what’s going on in the world—

An Interview With . . .

Sara AkbarAt a recent Capitol Hill luncheon hosted

by the Center for Excellence in Education, (CEE’s mission is to nurture high school and

university scholars to careers in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics).

Nancy Green, Executive Director of NAGC, had the opportunity to sit down with Sara Akbar, Senior Manager of Government Affairs with

Oracle. Experienced in the ways of Washington, DC, and a successful young leader in one of the

most innovative business software companies in the world. Sara’s intensity and enthusiasm

came through as she spoke about her passion for learning, upbringing, and her curiosity

about women and science.


26

Sara Akbar

how these events affect myself and how they affect Oracle. NG: From your vantage point, how does Oracle cultivate young scien-tists—especially women?

SA: Like many tech companies, Oracle believes its number one asset is em-ployees. I would say the environment is genderless, maybe because it’s tech-nology we’re talking about. By that I mean, it’s your knowledge and skills that qualify you. Gender and diversity is important, but secondary. Oracle also has developed a group called Oracle Women Leaders, which is led by senior executives who focus on management topics and approaches to building professional skills. The orga-nization can’t function unless bright, talented computer science, mathemat-ics, and engineering experts join the company and stay. For this reason, the company also encourages lifelong learning. With this being said, 35% of those in management and in executive positions are female. Role models and mentors are important. I’ve observed that when women mentor men, there is a ripple effect through the environ-ment—making the atmosphere more hospitable to women. NG: Would you describe your early educational experiences?

SA: I can’t remember when I began to realize that learning doesn’t stop after you leave the classroom. I have always worked hard to learn . . . for its own sake. For example, I would learn French because I wanted to, not just to get a good grade on the test. I also believe I benefited from a single sex education. Going to an all girls’ school contribut-ed to my bravery . . . it was a challeng-ing learning environment. I realized along the way that the lack of women

in science is a huge social justice issue. Traditionally, clinical trials are not done on women, because very few, if any, women biologists are among the scientists doing the research. If you have the same people with the same background solving the same problem you keep getting the same answer—mixing it up might create different dy-namics and more interesting solutions. NG: Did one teacher or class really make a difference in the career path you eventually chose?

SA: I have always loved math, but never realized I could have a career in it. Whether it was my parents or my teachers, the context for the importance for math—its connection to real-world issues, was never made for me. That’s why I tutor middle schoolers in alge-bra through the Higher Achievement

Program. With mentors like me, these kids get an additional 900 hours a year of instruction. It helps that I believe algebra teaches you to solve all of the world’s problems; it’s not open to interpretation. It’s right or wrong. I at-tribute much of my success to my skill in math. One advantage my parents did give me was exposing me to lots of life experiences—it helped me understand how I could make a difference in the world. From there I took my natural communication skills toward a career in political science.

NG: If you could give parents one piece of advice about how to raise a successful future scientist what would it be?

SA: My parents always had the all or nothing approach, “If you’re not go-ing to be a concert pianist, then don’t

PHP June 2011

27

bother learning piano.” Somehow out of that philosophy, I managed to appreci-ate the opposite approach—learning for its own sake. I think one of the most important values parents can model is a sense of balance. If you create balance in your children when they’re young, then they won’t go crazy once they are in college. For me, learning was always the point . . . so even when a professor would assign four chapters of a book, I would read the whole book. I do think the expectations of doing well in school were established by my parents. NG: What can you tell us about your research?

SA: My report is on Title IX compliance in STEM higher education. After 42 years of implementation of a ground-breaking law that bars gender discrimi-nation—we are seeing successes—more female professors and females having parity in earning bachelors degrees across most fields. Sadly this parity is

not seen in STEM (science, technology,

engineering, and math). Think of this

parallel—the pathway to seeing women

in power. Forty years ago, we couldn’t

have had a viable female candidate

for President of the United States or a

justice on the Supreme Court, because

the talent pool of educated women was

so thin. If we don’t get girls interested

in STEM during K–12, we can’t expect

to see female physicists, aerospace

engineers, and computer scientists.

Females are just as capable as males

at doing well in STEM. But women

need to know why what we do will help

others. Will designing this code help

financially challenged government

manage their limited funds better? Will

designing this piece of a levee system

prevent homes from being flooded 20

years from now? That is what STEM

does—it finds the innovations that can

help people live better, happier lives.

NG: So as a women in your mid-30s, do you think it’s still a man’s world or have we overcome the barriers?

SA: I think in some areas we see equal-

ity. While there isn’t parity in elected of-

ficials on Capitol Hill, there is parity in

staffing. But in STEM it’s still very much

a man’s world. We may have parity

in biology, chemistry, and mathematics,

but in computer science, physics, and

engineering, you’ll be lucky to find a fe-

male. Women also really need mentors—

women mentors make things better but

having a strong male mentor doesn’t

hurt either. That is a critical component

for future equity in science fields.

I can’t remember when I began to realize that learning doesn’t stop

after you leave the classroom. I have always worked hard to learn

. . . for its own sake.


28

in the last issue, my analysis amplified the letter A. This time, I work with the letter B. In upcoming articles in this series, I will extend the material and offer understandings

about gifted education and high-ability learners as I move alphabetically from C through Z. I invite parents and teachers to share their perspectives and experiences in “word-bites,” and I will consider how to incorporate these into the mix.

ABCsof Being Smart . . .

By Dr. Joanne Foster

PHP June 2011

29

Doing!• Beingsmartisjustthebeginning;

actually doing something with one’s capabilities—and putting forth effort—is a lot more important

• Boasting—sometimes“showingyour knowing” can be perceived by others as boastful or even arrogant. Children should be encouraged to share their ideas and understand-ings with pride, but in ways that don’t eclipse others

• Bragging—“Mysonissooosmarthe can count backwards by threes from 1000. Want to hear?” Be proud, but considerate; pleasant, not pompous.

• Bestpracticeingiftededucation—there are many models of and ap-proaches to teaching, and it is next to impossible to label any particu-lar approach as “best practice.” It makes good sense to find out what works most effectively for each child in response to individual needs and nuances

• Busywork(versusmeaningfulac-tivities)—think about, and act upon, the difference

• Behavioralproblems—whenlearn-ing is pleasurable, motivating, and successful, children are less likely to act out; however, when they experience frustration, boredom, unhappiness, or other concerns, then it’s important to think about the possible underlying reasons for their misbehavior, and to employ proactive, responsive, and preven-tive strategies (Two cautionary notes: Learning problems can contribute to negative behavioral patterns; be sure to consider that possibility. And, when behavior is aggressive, serious, persistently disruptive, or when children consis-tently ignore major age-appropri-

And the B Goes on . . .Being!• Brainpower—somethingtobe

proud of—every day

• Bolsterchildren’sconfidence—help them feel good about them-selves, even in areas of weakness, where they can learn to be proud of their effort, perseverance, and improvement

• Bored—whenchildrenarenotsufficiently challenged they often become bored and frustrated and who can blame them?

• Bored(again)—and,then,some-times being bored is the best way to figure out what one really wants to learn and do

• Benevolence—asidefromacadem-ics, parents and teachers can help children become kind, compassion-ate, and contributing members of society

• Better—giftedlearnersarenotbetterthan others; they’re just following their own developmental pathways

• Belonging(rejectioncanbebru-tal)—social competence varies from child to child, and is quite separate from academic competence. Caring adults can assist children in finding that “fit” or friend by talking to them honestly about their giftedness and their concerns about relationships, social norms, and how to build and maintain friendships

• Balance—likeeveryone,giftedlearners have areas of strength and weakness; personal balance involves learning to accept what one can do easily and what is more challenging

• Believeinchildren—andconveythat belief—and they will learn to believe in themselves


30

ate societal norms, it’s time to seek professional help.)

• Bridgeanygaps—betweenwhata child is learning in school, and what he needs and wants to learn

• Bullying—cantakemanyforms(ag-gression may be physical, verbal, written, virtual; bullies may be young or old; and sometimes gifted learners are targeted) and be-cause threatening experiences can compromise a child’s development or sense of well-being, bullying behaviors have to be addressed and eradicated in a sensitive, timely, in-formed manner by schools, parents, and students, working together

• Books—read,enjoyreading,readlots, read together, and encourage children to read

Stretching!• Beyondthecurriculum—seekout

the atypical, and various kinds of activities within and outside your community with an emphasis on choice.

• Budding—growthisongoing,asis

learning, and it must be nurtured with continual support that is both sensitive and responsive to indi-vidual needs

• Broadenunderstandings—ofwhatgiftedness is all about

• Buildnetworksofsupport—inareas such as advocacy, instruc-tional methods, team teaching, resource sharing, parenting, and anything else that has an impact on a child’s learning and healthy development

• Bringnewideastothetable—bringcreative applications to teaching and learning, professional development, counseling and guidance processes, and any approaches that might ben-efit gifted learners and stimulate and encourage high-level learning

• Brain-basedresearch—thisareaofstudy will continue to inform edu-cation with respect to how brain functioning and principles of cog-nitive neuroscience have an impact on teaching and learning processes

• Buzz—createanddiscoverthecount-

less resources to tap (e.g., web-sites, conferences, people, webi-nars, journal articles, workshops)

• Breadth—increasingthescopeand sophistication of inquiry will enable children to extend their understandings and learn at a higher, broader, and deeper level

Author’s NoteJoanne Foster, Ed.D., co-authored

the award-winning book Being Smart About Gifted Education (2nd ed., 2009). She also is a parent, teacher, consultant, researcher, and education specialist. Dr. Foster has more than 30 years experience working in the field of gifted education. She teaches educational psychology as well as gifted education at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education at the University of Toronto. She can be reached at [email protected].

iD Tech Camps Weeklong Ages 7-17

iD Teen Academies 2-Weeks Ages 13-18

Game DesignProgrammingApp Development

Web DesignFilmmakingRobotics & more!

HELD AT 60 PRESTIGIOUS UNIVERSITIES NATIONWIDE:Stanford Princeton Harvard Northwestern Emory Brown NYU & more!

internalDrive.com 1-888-709-TECH (8324)SAVE with CODE NAGC2

Special Teen Programs: iD Gaming Academy, iD Programming Academy & iD Visual Arts Academy

THE WORLD’S #1 TECH CAMP

PHP June 2011

31

Parents: By advancing your

potential at the NAGC

Convention, you’ll

ensure that high-ability

learners can reach their

full potential in the

classroom.

National Association for Gifted Children58th Annual Convention & ExhibitionNovember 3-6, 2011, in New Orleans

NAGC hosts the largest annual

convention devoted to gifted and

talented learners.

Classroom teachers, gifted/talented coordinators, school administrators, researchers, parents, college and

university faculty, and more, will converge in New Orleans, Louisiana, November 3-6, 2011, for the 58th Annual NAGC Convention. Throughout the pre-convention events, concurrent sessions, poster sessions, exhibit hall, general sessions, and networking events (both formal and informal!), you will witness the power of diverse viewpoints — from the field and from the classroom — coming together to make learning and life a challenging and rewarding experience for our nation’s gifted and talented learners.

Among the 350+ concurrent sessions offered at convention, here are titles of sessions that Parents will likely find most useful:

Technologyand21stCenturyParenting SuccessfullyParentingYourGiftedChildUsingtheSENGFormula ADelicateBalance:CanParentAdvocacyWorkWithoutOpposition DreamingWithYourEyesOpen:EngagingGiftedParentsandChildrenOutsideoftheSchoolDay ParentingforSuccess:ProvidingtheSupportaGiftedChildNeedstoMaximizePotential GoldilocksParenting:EffectsofTooMuch,NotEnough,andJusttheRightAmountofInvolvement

Help!IWanttobeCreativeWithmyChildrenButIDon’tKnowHow! BuildingBridgesofCommunicationBetweenSchoolDistrictsandParents A24/7Problem:AnIntroductionto

Cyberbullying NeedsofParentsofGiftedChildren:StepOneintheDevelopmentofaResearchTool TheGiftedChild’sGuidetoMakingTrueFriends EngagingExplorationsforYoungGiftedChildren

Register Online Today!Group Discounts Available

www.nagc.org/2011convention.aspx

Documents

NAGC Parenting for High Potential June 2011