2006-1

TEMPO Winter 2006 • Volume XXVI, Issue 1

Texas Association

for the

Gifted

and

Talented • Member, National Association for Gifted Children (NAGC)

Advocating for Gifted Education

Advocating for Gifted Education Texas Association for the Gifted and Talented

Advocating for Gifted Education

2006 Parent Conferences Killeen, TX - January 28th Killeen Civic & Conference Center

Odessa, TX - February 4th MCM Elegante Hotel

Sessions

Winter 2006 • Volume XXVI, Issue I

TEMPO Editor

Dr. Jennifer L. Jolly

President

Raymond F. “Rick” Peters

President-Elect Dr. Keith Yost

Bring the Kids! *Killeen Only* Gifted children, ages 6-12, may attend the children’s activities. All children will rotate among five activities throughout the day.

Featuring sessions specifically for parents of gifted children; you are sure to come away informed and excited about gifted education!

TEMPO First Vice-President Sheri Plybon

Second Vice-President Patti Staples

Third Vice-President Joanna Baleson

Secretary/Treasurer Robert Thompson

Immediate Past-President Bobby Wedgeworth

Training Hours

Cost $29 TAGT Members

Educators, attend the conference for five hours of professional development training credits in gifted education.

$49 Non-Members* *includes TAGT membership $10 Child (6 – 12 yrs.)

Executive Director Dianne Hughes

The Texas Association for the Gifted and Talented (TAGT) is a nonprofit organization of parents and professionals promoting appropriate education for gifted and talented students in the state of Texas.

TAGT Tempo is the official journal of the Texas Association for the Gifted and Talented.

It is published four times a year in January, April, July, and October. The subscription is a benefit for TAGT members. Annual dues are $35–$55.

Material appearing in Tempo may be reprinted unless otherwise noted. When copying an article please cite Tempo and TAGT as the source. We appreciate copies of publications containing Tempo reprints.

TAGT does not sell its membership list to advertisers or other parties. However, membership names and addresses are made available for approved research requests. If you do not wish your name to be made available for G/T-related research, please write to TAGT at the address below.

5

From the President

7

Executive Director’s Update

8

A Call to Greatness: Local Advocacy

Raymond F. “Rick” Peters

Dianne Hughes

Todd Kettler

13

Advocacy Toolkit

20

Parent Groups: Getting Started and Staying Strong

22

24

30

37

Lori Lewis

Book Reviews Student-Created Public Relations Amy Bisland

What Does the Research Say About Advocacy: An Update?

Susan K. Johnsen, Alexandra Shiu, and Sarah Feuerbacher

From the Editor

Jennifer L. Jolly

Address correspondence concerning the Texas Association for the Gifted and Talented (including subscription questions) to TAGT, 406 East 11th Street, Suite 310, Austin, Texas, 78701-2617. Call TAGT at 512/ 499-8248, FAX 512/499-8264.

ADDRESS CORRECTION REQUESTED: Please notify TAGT if you are moving or if your mailing address has changed. TAGT publications are sent via third-class mail and are not forwarded by the Post Office. Be sure to renew your membership. You will not receive TAGT publications or mailings after your membership expiration date.

www.txgifted.org

(512) 499-8248

Winter 2006 • Temp o • Texas Association for the Gifted and Talented

Opinions expressed by individual authors do not necessarily represent official positions of TAGT.

Winter 2006 • Temp o • Texas Association for the Gifted and Talented

Advocating for Gifted Education

Advocating for Gifted Education

LAW-RELATED EDUCATION ANNUAL CONFERENCE WHEN: February 10-11, 2006 WHERE: Red Lion’s Hotel, Austin WHO WILL BE THERE:

by RAYMOND F. “RICK” Peters

Friday, February 10, 2006—Mary Beth Tinker of Tinker vs. Des Moines Saturday, February 11, 2006—Dr. John P. Kiminski, Department of History, University of Wisconsin-Madison Registration Fee: $60; Register at the LFEI website, www.texaslre.org

STATE BAR OF TEXAS

Contributing Authors A Call to Greatness: Local Advocacy Todd Kettler, M.S., is the director of advanced academics for the Coppell Independent School District in Coppell, Texas. He is also a graduate student in the department of Educational Psychology at Baylor University. He taught middle school and high school English and worked for an educational service center as a gifted education specialist. His research interests included social constructivist learning theory, conceptual foundations of gifted education, and creative writing.

He can be reached at tkettler@coppellisd.com.

Parent Groups: Getting Started and Staying Strong Lori Lewis, B.A., is an elementary teacher and parent of a gifted child. Lori received her teaching certificate and BA in sociology from Virginia Wesleyan College in 1995. She has combined her passion for advocating for students and serving her community into a successful role as president of her local parent group in Humble, Texas. Her latest efforts have been focused on advising, and speaking and writing about organizing and maintaining successful parent groups. She can be reached at LoriLewis@ev1.net.

Student Created Public Relations for Gifted Education Amy Bisland, M.Ed., graduated from The University of Southern Mississippi in 2004 with a Ph.D. in curriculum, instruction, and special education with an emphasis in gifted education.

She currently serves as an enrichment specialist

for Hoover City Schools in Hoover Alabama. She can be reached at ABisland@hoover.k12.al.us.

What Does the Research Say About Advocacy?

Susan K. Johnsen, Ph.D., is a professor in the Department of Educational Psychology at Baylor University. She directs the Ph.D. program and programs related to gifted and talented education. She is past-president of the Texas Association for Gifted and Talented. She has written over 100 articles, monographs, technical reports, and books related to gifted education. She is a frequent presenter at international, national, and state conferences. She is editor of Gifted Child Today and serves on the editorial boards of Gifted Child Quarterly and the Journal of Secondary Gifted Education and the publications board of the Journal for Education of the Gifted.

She is the author of Identifying Gifted Students: A Practical Guide and coauthor of the Independent Study Program and three tests that are used in identifying gifted students: Test of Mathematical Abilities for Gifted Students (TOMAGS), Test of Nonverbal Intelligence (TONI-3), and Screening Assessment for Gifted Students (SAGES-2). She can be reached at Susan_Johnsen@baylor.edu.

Alexandra Shiu, M.S., received her undergraduate and graduate degrees in economics from Baylor University. She is a doctoral student and a graduate assistant in the Department of Educational Psychology at Baylor University. Her research interests include behavior theory, gifted

From the President

minority students from lower SES backgrounds, and social capital. She can be reached at Alex_ Shiu@baylor.edu.

Sarah Feuerbacher, Ph. D., LMSW earned a Bachelor’s and Master’s degree in Social Work and a Doctoral degree in Educational Psychology from Baylor University in Waco, TX. As a practicing LMSW and LCSW-supervisee, she is currently employed as a Battering Intervention and Prevention Program Intake Specialist/Counselor at Hope’s Door in Plano, TX. In addition, she serves as an Associate Faculty of Psychology in Behavioral and Brain Sciences at the University of Texas at Dallas. Dr. Feuerbacher’s research and publications are in the area of holistic approaches to working with at-risk, low socioeconomic, multicultural youth and their intrapersonal and environmental systems; her current research and public outreach focuses on multifaceted themes of domestic violence.

Winter 2006 • Temp o • Texas Association for the Gifted and Talented

If there is one word that describes TAGT members, it is passionate. It is a passion born of the realization that there is a whole population of students that can be left out unless we advocate for their moral right to “a year’s growth for a year in school”. If students test above ability relative to their age as they enter public schools and fall to proficiency as they leave, as a society, we have not only failed them but have squandered a national resource

see that their children’s needs are not being met. Parents and educators can be effective partners in the political arena as well as in the schools.

As a parent who worked with other parents to build a successful TAGT parent affiliate, I appreciate the importance of the local parent groups all across our state. My wife, Mary, and I have always been interested in the education of our children and

critical to our future. As your new president, I implore you to turn your intellectual passion into advocacy.

As an engineer at Lockheed Martin Aeronautics, I feel strongly that our state and nation should develop its own talent in order to successfully compete in the global economy. Our lead in technology is at risk as India and China educate many, many more engineers than we do. This is not a problem that can be easily fixed. Our youngest students from all socio-economic groups are encouraged to develop their talents or they will become one of our most under recognized groups of at-risk students. Over the past two years I have heard calls from several quarters to implement a sequel to the National Defense Education Act which was implemented after the Soviets launched Sputnik.

The result then was an emphasis on gifted education which supported technological growth that created jobs that in turn created more jobs. Unfortunately, current initiatives which concentrate exclusively on a minimum competency level can create an environment where development at more advanced levels can actually be discouraged as teachers respond to the high stakes testing environment. TAGT is in a unique position to play a part in a potential awakening among the larger population. Advocacy is turning passion into action much as engineering is turning science into practical applications.

As a father, I feel that all public schools in Texas should offer gifted children the opportunity to develop their potential.

Educators have my utmost appreciation for their selfless dedication to a higher ideal. Gifted educators in particular are often swimming against the current to help students realize their potential. TAGT must continue to work to make your teaching environment friendlier to both excellence and equity. Parents also sometimes feel as if they are swimming upstream if they

believe that public schools are critical to our future. We were encouraged to revive our local parent group by two educators, Dr. Bennie Hickerson, TAGT Past-President, and Ms. Nancy Nicks, our sons’ G/T teacher for several years. We all know that parents can be the most effective advocates but sometimes they might need a little encouragement to get started. Linda Foster, HEBISD G/T teacher, has done a great job of encouraging her

Winter 2006 • Temp o • Texas Association for the Gifted and Talented

Advocating for Gifted Education

parents to get involved in our local parent group. TAGT conferences are a great place for budding advocates to network and gather information and were instrumental to my development as an advocate.

Here are some key elements for parents to remember as they advocate locally for their gifted children: • Establish positive communication with your child’s teacher.

Help the teacher to understand your child by sharing stories about their development.

• Become active in TAGT and your local parent affiliate. Your voice will be stronger as a member of these groups that are dedicated to the development of gifted children.

• Become active in your child’s education. Volunteer to help your child’s teacher during school or after depending on your

to give gifted children a voice. Without grassroots support, we could lose much that has been gained. Our local legislators appreciate information from their constituents about issues before them. It is better to develop a relationship early so that they know you as a valued source of reliable information and support for gifted education. Changes to legislation can occur at a fast pace so stay informed through TAGT. I believe that because of the political situation in Texas with respect to school funding, even our initial gains could be at risk if lawmakers were to accept a shortsighted solution. Now that the Texas Supreme Court has ruled on the Texas school finance system, lawmakers will be working hard to come up with a solution to our school finance problems. The passion of those who understand the inequity of allowing tomorrow’s talent to vegetate

own work responsibilities. Volunteer to serve on school district committees. Time spent in this way not only develops a relationship with your child’s school, but serves as a shining example to your child as to the value you place on their education.

• Always remember that giftedness is not a status symbol but a real learning difference that must be addressed. Gifted children have a diversity of backgrounds and needs. The payoff if these needs are addressed can be great for both our society as well as for the child.

• If ever a need exists to elevate a concern, always start with the teacher and never skip a step in the “chain of command”.

• Get the facts about gifted education. Texas has a funded mandate for gifted education. The Texas State Plan for the Education of Gifted and Talented Students provides what Texas law requires in the way of gifted services. The acceptable category is required by law. While the higher levels are optional, several school districts across the state have achieved the recognized level.

Thanks in large part to the advocacy efforts of TAGT members and the far-sightedness of some Texas legislators, Texas was one of the first states to implement a mandate that gifted and talented students be served in our public schools. Texas lawmakers created a model that other states have followed. We still have much to do to ensure that all Texas students are given the opportunity to develop their potential.

Get to know your legislators. The new year will bring a special session on school finance and your help might be needed

can ignite those in power if we connect this injustice to the effect that it will certainly have on the economic future of Texas and the United States.

In the grand scheme, our state and our nation must be able to compete in the global economy of the 21st century by allowing these children to become the creative forces and leaders that they are meant to be. Put your passion into action by advocating for the gifted students of Texas.

Raymond F. “Rick” Peters is a Systems Engineer Principal at Lockheed Martin Aeronautics in Fort Worth and President of the Texas Association for the Gifted and Talented. He and his wife, Mary, have been active for many years in working to improve public education for gifted students. They have two sons who benefited from the gifted program in HEBISD. He recently served TAGT as VP for Parent/Community Involvement for four years. He has also been active on other educational, civic, church, and professional boards, and committees. Rick served in the U.S. Navy, received degrees from Baylor, UT Austin, and UT Arlington, and is a Senior Member of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers.

Winter 2006 • Temp o • Texas Association for the Gifted and Talented

Advocating for Gifted Education

Executive Director’s Update

by Dianne Hughes Advocacy — a state of action TAGT Mission Statement: To promote awareness of the unique, social, emotional, and intellectual needs of gifted/talented students and to impact the development of appropriate educational services to meet these needs.

The mission statement for the Texas Association for the Gifted and Talented implies advocacy in the form of public relations when it “promotes” awareness.

However, when the mission statement references “impact”, the assumption is that advocacy becomes more active. Whether used as a noun or verb, to advocate IS an active condition, not passive.

When I was the executive director for trade and professional associations, the advocacy role was to protect the business interests of the trade and the viability of the profession in the marketplace. The goal was to limit negative government restriction on profits and to increase the ability to successfully support one’s livelihood.

While an advocacy goal may have some altruistic roots, it remains a focused special interest grounded in some form of protectionism. This statement is not intended to be negative, but, rather, it is a pragmatic acknowledgement, applicable to any issue.

In that light, TAGT has included in its mission to actively argue for the benefit of gifted and talented young people and those who nurture, support, and serve them. Gifted and talented students are a special population with educational needs that go beyond those of the majority of students in our schools. These students are TAGT’s special interest it has chosen to support and protect as an advocate in regard to educational opportunity, standards of performance, and funding.

Additionally, the educators who serve this special population are a special interest group because their professional growth and livelihood are vested in the government and community support of gifted and talented programs. This concept may be one that the majority of our members have not embraced or even considered. Because educators are in a “service profession”, the idea of protecting one’s livelihood and the quality of one’s professional environment does not align like those professions tied to corporate profits. G/T educators are a special population within education whose needs may sometimes align with other educators, but they are not the same.

Consequently, the lives of G/T educators as well as those of gifted and talented young people and their parents are impacted if there is no voice to argue for their interests. While TAGT exists to help in the role of advocate, the voice of an organization is only as effective as that of the collective voices of its members.

Each voice counts when it communicates.

And, today, the ability to communicate has never been easier, whether by phone, email, fax, or regular mail. Individual constituents of elected officials have more impact with their message than an organization’s lobbyist…and far more impact than the lobbyist at the ballot box.

Keeping the power of the ballot box in mind, the issue of public school finance is being politically managed. Hence, the decision to appoint John Sharp to chair a governor’s tax commission and the likelihood that there will be no special legislative session on school finance until after the primary elections in March. In the proposed school finance package from the regular and two special legislative sessions, gifted and talented education fund-

ing would have fared well. Unfortunately, educators, whether in regular or gifted programs, would not have seen a fraction of support from the state that fosters the professional growth and performance expected and paid for in the private sector.

TAGT’s voice of advocacy as an organization must strike a fine balance within the broader needs of education and educators.

The individual voices of TAGT members may advocate with a more focused and vigorous special interest.

This will be a very significant state election year. There currently are 10 gubernatorial candidates, a total of 27 candidates for statewide offices, 28 candidates for half of the Texas Senate seats with 7 unopposed seats and all of the 150 House seats with approximately a third of those unopposed. Our collective obligation is to become as informed as possible about candidates running in our home districts in regard to their positions on the issues that most impact our livelihood, how we are able to respond to the challenges of our work and our environment, and, most certainly, the quality of life that we are able to foster and receive within our community.

TAGT will be ready when we must advocate for educational opportunity and funding for the gifted and talented, and it will be prepared to advocate for standards supportive of our specialized educators.

Likewise, we will work with you to glean information about candidates in your districts to help you know where they stand on important issues relevant to education and specific to gifted education. Our challenge over the next several weeks is to be informed, to communicate, to show up, and to vote. As with any special interest, the goal is to protect what we value.

Winter 2006 • Temp o • Texas Association for the Gifted and Talented

A Call to Greatness: Local Advocacy

By Todd Kettler

About a year ago I was sitting in a conference room with a group of administrators and the conversation turned to the impact of good teachers and the dangers of teachers who were, well, not as good. One of the principals in the room laid out his plan to move some of the best teachers from his gifted and Advanced Placement program down to teach basic freshman and sophomore classes. Those are the heaviest accountability years, and that is where the students needed the best teachers.

A few weeks later I sat in the office of an elementary principal who told me that she was cutting her gifted teacher back to half-time in order to hire another reading teacher for the literacy program. The budget had not been cut, and the number of gifted students had not declined. Rather the accountability pressures influenced the decision on how to use available resources.

On another day after the implementation of a federal Reading First grant, I sat in a classroom where a gifted first-grader who could read chapter books independently was asked to arrange the letters of the alphabet in order as part of the group reading lesson. When I asked why the student was required to do that activity since she was already reading well above grade level, I was told that the grant required all students to complete program components together, and alphabetizing the letters was one of them.

Fall 2005 • Temp o • Texas Association for the Gifted and Talented

Winter 2006 • Temp o • Texas Association for the Gifted and Talented

Advocating for Gifted Education

Sadly, all of these incidents are true.

Perhaps worse, none of them necessarily represents an action that would cause a district to be out of compliance with the Texas State Plan for Education of Gifted/Talented Students (Texas Education Agency, 2000) even if the state still allocated resources to follow up on district compliance with gifted education requirements. Why is it that some schools maintain programs that comply on paper with the state guidelines, and other districts build programs filled with multiple options and great opportunities for gifted students? I believe that organized and appropriate advocacy at the local level can make a significant difference between compliant gifted programs and great gifted programs.

As much as I would like to think that state policymakers and state education agencies are the leaders in developing quality programs for gifted students, I have outgrown the naïve belief that it will or even should happen. Does that mean I have abandoned all hope? Just the opposite, I have found renewed hope in the power of local advocacy. Communities and parent groups can work with school leaders to establish specific standards of excellence that are more appropriate and easier to evaluate that general standards imposed from afar with little ability to monitor implementation.

Local advocacy is the organized effort of parents and educators to develop and improve programs for gifted students in individual schools or school districts.

Local advocacy does not seek to change state policy, but may well change school district policy. Local advocacy does not require letter writing and lobbying, but it may include working lunches, after school meetings, and presentations to the local school board. There are many parents who would not involve themselves with state politics, but they would gladly participate in parent organizations in local communities to strengthen the program for their gifted children. Whereas state guidelines and requirements may insure the existence of a gifted program, local advocacy provides the inertia that translates requirements into exciting opportunities.

Effectiveness of Local Advocacy The empirical literature on advocacy is limited, and specific research on local

10

advocacy verses state or national advocacy is even more limited still (Robinson & Moon, 2003). However, there have been a few case studies of successful advocacy efforts that are capable of building a knowledge base on how to develop local advocacy efforts that influence the quality of local school programs and policies (Delcourt, 2003; Enersen, 2003; Grantham, 2003; Hertzog, 2003; Kennedy, 2003; Kraver, 1987; Purcell, 1995). This study identified several common factors associated with advocacy efforts that have influenced state or local policy and program opportunities.

First, advocacy groups that effectively influenced change began with a solid knowledge of current policies (Robinson & Moon, 2003). This typically included state laws as well as local district policies and guidelines. In the state of Texas, this would include knowledge of the Texas State Plan for the Education of Gifted/ Talented Students (Texas Education Agency, 2000). Beyond knowing the policies, effective advocates also assessed the policies and had an understanding of how to change the policies when change was needed (Delcourt, 2003; Grantham, 2003). Effective advocates understood what the local district policy entailed.

Furthermore, they were able to compare local practices to local policies to ensure compliance. Effective advocates develop knowledge of how policy is created and revised in a school district. Who is responsible for drafting and proposing new policy? What decisions require school board policy, and what decisions are administrative guidelines? How much flexibility do individual campuses have when implementing district policies? These fundamental policy questions require at least a basic understanding to effectively work for change with local advocacy efforts.

The second factor common to successful advocacy was strong leadership (Hertzog, 2003; Kennedy, 2003; Robinson & Moon, 2003). Leaders may have been individual champions who worked tirelessly for change, or they may have been groups of teachers with a passion for gifted learners. Leaders were often parents working alone or with other parents.

In some cases, the leadership came from a district administrator working in the gifted or advanced academics department. Leadership can also be provided

Advocating for Gifted Education by professional organizations (Texas Association for the Gifted and Talented (TAGT) or National Association for Gifted Children (NAGC)). The leader or leaders of advocacy efforts were characterized as highly motivated, influential, and collaborative. The leadership provided the vision and the organization for advocacy efforts. Leadership may be most critical in the initial stages of organization for advocacy efforts. A strong leader in most cases was able to organize a group either formally or informally to work for positive change, but it took a committed person with a knack for attracting supporters to the cause.

The third factor of successful advocacy was knowledge of gifted education and knowledge of advocacy or the change process. Successful advocacy efforts require knowledge of the nature and needs of gifted learners and best practices for gifted programs (Enersen, 2003; Hertzog, 2003; Kennedy, 2003). Effective advocacy efforts typically had a clear goal in mind, and the goal was best established based on knowledge of best practices and recommended standards. Case studies revealed leaders and groups who spent much time and effort reading about gifted students and gifted programs. They attended gifted conferences locally or at the state and national levels. In some cases, they examined other gifted programs deemed as successful or desirable. Advocates participated in positive communication with district leadership and experts in gifted

They told stories of doing the same thing over and over again as though not leaving anyone behind justified the decision to not let anyone get ahead. Gifted students reported increased pressure to pull-up scores. education. Knowledge of gifted education and research-supported standards formed the foundation of what the advocates wanted as a result of the efforts.

Gifted advocates also had knowledge of advocacy models. This knowledge was either present from previous professional experiences or obtained through reading or education. Models of advocacy in gifted education are available in the professional

Winter 2006 • Temp o • Texas Association for the Gifted and Talented

literature (Dettmer, 1991 & 1995; Gallagher, 1983; Moon, 2005), and recent research has supported the validity of the models (Robinson & Moon, 2003). Models of advocacy included clear messages delivered by effective messengers, strategies to expand the support group, non-adversarial negotiation with school boards and school personnel, and follow through evaluation efforts. There were themes of collaboration and clear communication constant in successful efforts of change (Hertzog, 2003; Kennedy, 2003). Advocacy for positive change often required long periods of time with gradual progress and mutual trust and respect between advocates and district decision-makers.

Why Local Advocacy Efforts are Timely in Texas Arguably the federal impact on local educational practices is greater now than at any time in history. The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) has had a sweeping and distinct impact on educational practices and priorities. A study by Moon, Brighton, and Callahan (2003) identified some of the major implications of NCLB on gifted education.

Moon, Brighton, and Callahan identified four teacher practices that have become increasingly more prevalent under the influence of NCLB. First, teachers selfreport to spending more time teaching to the test that previously in their teaching careers. With state accountability generating tremendous pressure on districts and teachers, preparing all students to pass the state test has become priority number one. Second, teaching to the test has the impact of narrowing the scope of instruction and eliminating subject matter that is not found on the accountability exam. Curricular objectives not tested are identified and crammed into the instructional wasteland of May when state tests are completed and prom and graduation compete for student attention. Schools specifically build schedules so that increased time is spent on tested subjects and subjects not tested (foreign language, science, and social studies at some grade levels) get shorter class periods or share blocks of time at the end of the instructional day. Third, worksheets have made their greatest comeback since the day when spirit duplicators and their fragrant purple ink arrived in every school build-

ing. Stacks of worksheets in “test format” line the shelves of classrooms and clutter the backpacks of students. Innovation and creativity in lesson planning is being replaced with standardization. Finally, teachers report that little time or effort is spent on differentiation for learners, and students are offered few if any choices in their instructional tasks. Curriculum is more likely than ever to be scripted, and in many cases all students in the room are on the same page at the same time regardless of their ability or rate of learning.

Moon, Brighton, and Callahan also report that NCLB has impacted administrator behavior as well. Campus and district administrators are inclined to demand that all teaching and student work be in preparation for state tests.

The stakes are too high to take chances.

Deviation from the curriculum is not allowed and differentiation is a risk rather than a welcome accommodation. This study also investigated perceptions of gifted students. Gifted students reported increased boredom and disengagement in class. They told stories of doing the same thing over and over again as though not leaving anyone behind justified the decision to not let anyone get ahead. Gifted students reported increased pressure to pull-up scores. They perceived themselves as resources, highly valued by teachers not for their curiosity or clever wit but as statistical trump cards capable of moving the class average in the right direction. In many cases they were the peer tutors, free resources to aid the struggling learners sitting around them.

The implication of NCLB on gifted education goes beyond the classroom level as well. The last few years have seen some states revoke their funding for gifted education completely and others cut it significantly in order to re-allocate the resources to meet NCLB standards. School districts across the country as well as in Texas have felt pressure to restructure gifted programs so that resources could be re-allocated to other areas of need.

Additionally, all student groups except gifted and talented learners are part of the accountability formula in Texas.

Districts are held accountable for performance of special education students and second-language students. Yet, performance of gifted and talented students is not monitored beyond the “all student”

category or the basic passing standard.

Several years ago the state budget cuts eliminated District Effectiveness and Compliance (DEC) monitoring which included gifted education. It was recently replaced with the Performance-Based Monitoring (PBM) system; however, though gifted and talented was a part of the DEC system, it was not included in the PBM system. Though a few administrators claimed relief for this omission, it represents another opportunity for school districts to divert attention and resources away from gifted and talented programs.

Lastly, Texas requires certification of teachers in virtually all areas except gifted and talented education. Passing a state licensure exam is required before being allowed to teach physical education, music, or health, but gifted and talented teachers need only have a few hours of staff development. Special education and English language learner programs are required to have fully licensed teachers, but the gifted and talented program is not. Worse yet, the state spent several years and thousands of taxpayer dollars to develop gifted and talented teacher standards and a certification exam, but then decided to make it optional. Lawmakers did not want to burden teachers and districts with the hassle or expense of the certification even though they have no problem doing so in every other subject or special population.

The time could not be more critical for organized and effective local advocacy.

The impact of NCLB has been devastating for gifted education programs and mindnumbing for gifted students. State lawmakers have demonstrated indifference toward gifted education partly because of the pressure to focus only on the accountability areas emphasized by NCLB. Local advocacy with local school boards appears to bear more fruitful opportunities to effect positive change and build quality gifted programs.

Recommendations First, I highly recommend organized parent groups to form the foundation for local advocacy. Organized parent groups can affiliate with the state organization (TAGT) and develop an increased capacity to work with district officials to build quality programs. Parent groups yield better communication about local poli-

Winter 2006 • Temp o • Texas Association for the Gifted and Talented

11

Advocating for Gifted Education

cies and practices. They provide opportunities to learn more about gifted students and best practices, and they are natural advocates due to the nature of their organization and numbers.

Second, I recommend that parents and gifted educators advocate that the district require gifted certification even though the state of Texas decided to make it optional. Local district policy can be established to make the certification a requirement. Given what we know about the impact of teacher quality, it seems irresponsible or negligent not to require demonstrated expertise before hiring or placing teachers in gifted and talented programs. The good news is that they have already developed and field-tested the examination, and the state of Texas will administer it, score, and add it to the teacher certification record. This is a perfect example of how local advocacy can do what statewide advocacy failed to do, require highly qualified gifted and talented teachers.

Third, advocates for gifted education should look to emerging systems of benchmarking as a way to identify areas for acceleration or enrichment. Benchmarking has emerged as a widely accepted practice in the wake of NCLB. Whereas it is often perceived as a negative influence for gifted education, it could easily be used as formalized pre-testing. Gifted education has long been asking for pre-testing as a first step toward differentiation (i.e. compacted curriculum and tiered instruction). Do not look at benchmarking as setting a ceiling for learning. Rather it can be a starting point for individualization, a basis for grouping by ability or readiness, and a prescriptive tool for what students no longer need to be taught. Without local advocacy, benchmarking could be the driving force to keep all students on the same lesson at the same time regardless of ability or demonstrated competency; however, with local advocacy, it can become a district-wide tool for data-driven differentiation.

Local advocacy can be the key element in the development of an excellent gifted and talented program. Evidence from previous case studies demonstrates that effective advocacy can influence local policies and practices. Local advocacy efforts can make schools and districts just

12

as accountable for their gifted students as they are for other groups of students.

Local advocates working with committed district leadership can define and develop the standards of achievement they would expect for gifted students.

Such a system could ill afford to reallocate resources, shuffle quality teachers to new assignments, or restrict the instruction of gifted learners. Such a system could ill afford to divide the gifted students among several classrooms to balance the talent pool. Such a system could ill afford to use benchmarking or other mechanisms to prevent appropriate acceleration of learning. Organized local advocacy may be the best-kept secret for transforming good gifted programs into great gifted programs

References Delcourt, M. A. B. (2003). Five ingredients for success: Two case studies of advocacy at the state level. Gifted Child Quarterly, 47, 26-37.

Dettmer, P. (1991). Gifted program advocacy: Overhauling bandwagons to build support. Gifted Child Quarterly, 35, 165-171.

Dettmer, P. (1995). Building advocacy and public support for gifted education. In J. L. Genshaft, M.Bireley & C. L. Hollinger (Eds.), Serving gifted and talented students: A resource for school personnel (pp. 389-405). Austin, TX: PRO-ED. Enersen, D. (2003). The art of bridge building:Providing for gifted children. Gifted Child Quarterly, 47, 38-45.

Gallagher, J. G. (1983). A model of advocacy for gifted education. In J. G. Gallagher, S. Kaplan, & I. Sato (Eds.), Promoting the education of the gifted/ talented: Strategies for advocacy (pp.

1-9). Ventura, CA: The National/State Leadership Training Institute on the Gifted and the Talented.

Grantham, T. C. (2003). Increasing black student enrollment in gifted programs: An exploration of the Pulaski County Special School District’s advocacy efforts. Gifted Child Quarterly, 47, 46-65.

Hertzog, H. B. (2003). Advocacy: “On the cutting edge…” Gifted Child Quarterly, 47, 66-81.

Kennedy, D. (2003). Custer, South Dakota: “Gifted’s” last stand. Gifted Child Quarterly, 47, 82-93.

Kraver, B. A. (1987). Advocacy influence in promoting education legislation for the Arizona gifted, 1970-1986 (Doctoral dissertation, Arizona State University, 1986). Dissertation Abstracts International, 48, 03A 0528.

Moon, T. R. (2005, September). National and state testing initiatives: A call to arms for parents of gifted youth.

Parenting for High Potential, 18-21.

Moon, T. R., Brighton, C. M., & Callahan, C. M. (2003). State-standardized testing programs: Friend or foe of gifted education? Roeper Review, 25(2) 49-60.

Purcell, J. (1995). Gifted education at a crossroads: The program status study.

Gifted Child Quarterly, 39, 57-65.

Robinson, A., & Moon, S. M. (2003). A national study of local and state advocacy in gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 47, 8-25.

Texas Education Agency. (2000). Texas state plan for the education of gifted/ talented students. Austin, TX: Author.

Winter 2006 • Temp o • Texas Association for the Gifted and Talented

Advocacy Toolkit The information presented in the Advocacy Toolkit was compiled by the National Asscoation for Gifted Children to assist in the advocacy efforts on behalf of gifted education. This comprehensive beginners guide to negotiating with decision makers, especially local, state, and federal legislators, provides tools for effectively communicating key points and arguments.

Know Your Information One of the keys to effective advocacy is having the confidence to make your case.

Remember, you are competing for the time and attention of elected officials, so well organized and articulated arguments are more persuasive than passion alone. You don’t have to be an expert to be an effective advocate, but it is important to have some basic facts. Also, the most successful advocates take the role of “teacher” by moving elected officials and their staff along in the learning process.

The Big Picture What’s gifted education like on the national level?

Why We Need Gifted and Talented Education Look for some facts and figures to strengthen your argument.

Common Myths When advocating for gifted and talented you’ll run in to many of the same misconceptions about gifted students. Investigate the truth behind the myth.

Advocating for Gifted Education

Advocating for Gifted Education

Know Your Audience

approximately 37 percent of all education spending; much of these expenditures inEducation issues are complex and clude personnel, school construction, and are administered and funded at different transportation costs. Many key decisions levels of government. Therefore, familiar- that affect gifted and talented learners are izing yourself with who makes decisions also made at the local level. In some states, and when those decisions are made is state law and policy specifies what districts important to successful advocacy. must do for gifted learners, in others, the states require programs and services for Who Makes The Decisions: gifted learners but leave the specifics to the districts; in still other states districts Federal make decisions in the absence of state law, The federal government has recently in- policy, or funding. Local gifted education creased its role in education decisions, decisions often include the following: in with the passage of the No Child Left which grades gifted education services Behind Act (NCLB). Yet, even with Title will be offered; in what subjects services I programs for children with disabilities, are offered; identification procedures for and NCLB, the federal government’s share determining eligibility for services, the of the total education spending in the U.S. curriculum that will be used; manner is approximately 8.5 percent. in which the services will be delivered, including whether to offer pull-out proThe only federal program that specifically grams, magnet schools, online learning, addresses gifted learners is the Jacob Javits flexible grouping, or grade skipping, Gifted and Talented Students Education for example; whether regular education Act, a small program that funds the teachers and school counselors receive National Research Center on the Gifted in-service professional development on and Talented as well as demonstration the needs of gifted learners; and whether grants and statewide grants to help iden- the school or district offers after-school tify and support underserved gifted learn- advanced learning opportunities or parers. Other federally supported program ticipates in state or national academic or that can intersect with state and local arts competitions. programs for gifted students are those that support the Advanced Placement Timing Your Advocacy (AP) and International Baccalaureate (IB) programs, as well as grants that support Timing is one of the most important advanced teacher training in math and elements to keep in mind when advocatscience. ing for gifted education services at any level of government. State legislatures and State local school boards (and to a lesser degree, In the U.S., states have the largest stake Congress) operate on a calendar that dicin and responsibility for public education- tates when key decisions will be made. Bill they finance approximately 46 percent introduction, committee hearings, which of all education spending. Many states offer the public the chance to have input, also make the greater part of the policy budget hearings, amendments, and votes decisions on gifted and talented educa- all occur on a schedule that is unique to tion including decisions about whether each legislature or school board. It is not to mandate gifted education services always logical, but it is certainly imperaat the district level; whether to require tive: in some cases the time table is comteacher certification in gifted education; pressed because a legislature is in session decisions about identification procedures, for only three months each year; in other including at what grade/age gifted educa- cases a school board makes decisions in tion programming begins; age and course the winter and spring about the next year’s requirements for high school diplomas; school budget. It is vitally important that and whether there will be state funding to advocates learn what the schedule for dedistricts to provide services. cision making is in their state and district so that they do not miss the opportunity Local to provide input on the key decisions afLocal school districts are the source of fecting gifted education.

14

Communication Tools for Advocacy Now that you have your basic background information and arguments in hand and know who your audience is, it’s time to decide how you are going to communicate to your elected officials.

Remember that the most appropriate strategy may change, depending on the timing of the communication: a general rule of thumb is that the shorter the time frame the more acceptable less formal communications become.

It is also important to remember that in all communications with elected officials and their staff, be sure to introduce yourself, provide affiliation information, and provide a mailing address so that your officials can respond to you.

1. Writing A Constituent Letter Without questions, letters are the most effective form of communication with elected officials. Letters create a sense of seriousness, due in part to the time they take to write, that cannot be captured in emails. Association or business letterhead also helps lend a visual distinctiveness and credibility to your concern. Because of new security measures in Washington, DC, U.S. mail delivery delays to Congress of up to three weeks are the norm. As a result, it is becoming more common to fax letters to offices.

A Few Guidelines to Keep in Mind When Writing a Letter: • Use personal or business letterhead, if possible. Be sure your name and return address is on your communicationsometimes letters become separated from the mailing envelope.

• Identify your subject clearly. Refer to a bill number if you are writing about specific legislation.

• State your reason for writing. Your personal experience is usually the strongest reason. Explain how the issue affects your school district, your students, or your child. Do you represent a group of parents or teachers? Be sure to include that as well.

• Be reasonable and constructive. If you oppose a measure, state clearly why the measure is a concern. If possible, offer an alternative. Include examples or data where possible, being careful

Winter 2006 • Temp o • Texas Association for the Gifted and Talented

not to make any unsupportable claims.

Misinformation casts doubt on you and your views.

• Ask your elected official to provide his/ her position on the issue in a written reply.

• Be sure to thank the official if he/she votes the way you requested or indicates strong support for your issue. Everyone appreciates-and remembers-a complimentary letter.

2. Electronic Communications Making a Constituent Telephone Call A telephone call can be effective when you want to record your views on an upcoming vote or when your opinion can be stated very concisely. Calls are not an effective way to educate legislators, nor do they provide the opportunity to demonstrate your expertise on an issue. In most cases, receptionists handle the calls and their goal is to simply make a record of the call.

In some legislatures and in Congressional offices, it may be possible to speak directly with a staff member working for your elected official to provide a bit more information.

When making a telephone call to elected officials, keep the following in mind: • State your views clearly and succinctlytime is precious for everyone.

• Conclude your message with a request for action.

• Be prepared to leave your name, address, and telephone number.

Email Messages Although email has become standard business practice, the simplicity of email in some case makes it less effective because of the time it takes for offices to wade through the volume of email that arrives on particular issues. Additionally, because all email “looks” alike, communication from organizations with many members in the district or state (e.g., local parent groups and statewide gifted education associations), which should carry additional weight because of the numbers of constituents represented by the communication, are unable to distinguish themselves easily via email. Compare the impact of emails that come to your personal email accounts to the letters written on easy-to-read and

sometimes easily recognized letterhead and you will see what we mean.

Email is definitely better than not communicating at all. And, when there is an urgent issue, for example, when there is less than 72 hours to reach your elected officials about an upcoming vote, emails, phone calls, and faxes are the only means to reach an office in time. If possible, email should be used only after a relationship with the elected official has been established, reserved for communications with staff, or used when time is of a premium.

Again, if you do use email, always be sure to include your full name and your complete mailing address so that the official can respond to you.

3. In-Person Meetings Face-to-face meetings are the most effective means to convey a message. Meetings often are the beginning of a long-term relationship with your elected officials and their staffs. Keep in mind that successful advocacy requires a sustained effort, not simply one letter, phone call, or meeting.

Depending on the distance involved, you many never have had the opportunity to meet your elected representatives in your state capital or in Washington, DC. However, your elected officials also have local offices, sometimes staffed by parttime employees.

Your local school board members also have offices where they meet constituents. You can find the office locations and phone numbers on line through local, state, and Congressional websites or in a separate government section of your phonebook.

No matter which

official you’re trying to see, there are several steps to take, planning as far in advance as possible: Making An Appointment: Call your elected official’s office and ask to speak with the person who sets up appointments. Be prepared to provide information about yourself (or your group), the topic you’d like to discuss, and a range of days (or times) that you would like to meet.

Be prepared to send the office a request in writing, particularly if it is with a Member of Congress. If the official has more than one office, and you can be flexible about where and when you meet, be sure to let the appointments secretary know. If your legislator is completely unavailable, but has a staff person who is knowledgeable about education issues, ask if you can make an appointment with that staff member; they are often very helpful, and meetings can be very productive.

Prepare for the Meeting: Have your information ready in a concise form, just as you would when writing a letter or mak-

Winter 2006 • Temp o • Texas Association for the Gifted and Talented

15

Advocating for Gifted Education ing a telephone call. Prepare the strongest two or three reasons why your legislator should support your views and practice your conversation with a friend. Know the opposing argument so that you can respond to questions. Develop a packet of information, if possible, to leave behind so that the legislator can begin a file on your issue. Bring a business card if you have one.

At the Meeting: Be on time, of course.

But don’t be surprised if your legislator is running late. Making visits to Congress or to state legislatures requires flexibility and patience. Once the meeting begins, • State the reason for your visit in one sentence.

• Then, take your cue from the legislator: if he or she seems familiar with the issue, move right ahead with your request for support for a specific vote, etc. If not, use the time to inform him/her to the key elements of the issue.

• When possible, give local examples and make local analogies so that you are building a case on constituent needs.

• Ask your legislator to take specific action: co-sponsor a certain bill; vote for or against a bill.

• If you are asked a question you are not able to answer, tell the legislator you do not know, but that you will find out the answer and get back to him/her.

• Never makeup an answer; wrong or misleading information will permanently damage your credibility.

• At the end of the meeting be sure to thank the legislator for his/her time, reiterating that you will follow up with any information you may have promised.

• If you are meeting on behalf of a state or local group, you might ask to have your picture taken together so that you may use it in your newsletter or on your website.

Follow Up: If you promised to gather additional information, do so as soon as possible. Send a thank you letter to the legislator (or the staff, if that is with whom you met), capitalizing on the opportunity to restate your major points in the letter.

If you used a photo in a newsletter, be sure to send a copy to the legislator’s office.

Keep track of the names of any staff that you met so that you can follow up with

16

them and apprised of new developments on your issue.

One Other Note: Elected officials often schedule community meetings to hear from constituents about local concerns.

Many advocates are also active in their communities in other ways, crossing paths with elected officials at dinners, receptions, or other events. Take every opportunity to speak with and develop a relationship with those who represent you.

Although you may not be able to discuss gifted education issues at every event, you may have a moment to ask the official if you might meet with him/her in the near future to discuss your concerns.

Maximizing Your Impact As important as it is to communicate with elected officials on issues that concern us as individuals, issues that require new initiatives, or changes in funding, school services, or teacher training require the concerted effort of many activities. Therefore, it is imperative that advocates find ways to urge others to join the cause. Here are four strategies to help you maximize your impact.

1. Strength in Numbers It is self-evident that multiple letters and phone calls have a greater effect than does a single communication. Therefore, your challenge as an advocate is to get others to let your elected officials know about the need for strong gifted education programs and services. You might try the following: • Ask the parents and teachers of the high-ability students in your child’s school to support local, state, and federal initiatives. In some circumstances it may be appropriate for students to contact elected officials or to testify at a hearing about their experience.

• Join your national, state, and local gifted education associations and urge others to do so as well. These organizations provide an excellent network of resources and support; they are also a logical source for a letter-writing campaign.

• Local business leaders in your community should be supportive-they need creative, critical thinkers as future employees. Many of them may not be aware

Advocating for Gifted Education of the status of services for high-ability learners in your community, state, or in the nation. Local and statewide professional and service organizations may also be receptive to your message. Keep in mind that many of these potential supporters are themselves products of gifted education and they would be happy to share their support with decision makers, if asked.

• Make contact with other education organizations in your state. Offer to do a short presentation (to the executive committee, legislative committee, etc.) on the educational needs of gifted students and how new initiatives in your state and in Congress would make a difference in your community and state. Additionally, it may be possible to appeal directly to their members for support by writing a guest column for the education association’s newsletter.

• Recruiting “VIPs.” Although every constituent letter carries weight in a legislator’s office, the reality is that some citizens have more influence on specific issues or with specific elected officials than others. For example, a legislator’s lifelong friend, relative, or former business associate is likely to have influence.

Likewise, a former state superintendent of education generally has built-in credibility on education issues, even when he/she does not know the legislator personally. We all know VIPs or have access to them. It may be a work colleague, neighbor, or someone with whom we worship or volunteer. Generating letters from these VIPs is usually a matter of asking them and then providing them with sufficient information to craft a high-impact letter. You might even offer to draft it for them.

2. Working with Others Whenever possible, it makes sense to work with other groups in support of an issue.

Developing coalitions not only increases the numbers of supporters on specific state or local issues, but also broadens awareness of your issue with the membership of the other groups. It also can open doors for many other opportunities.

For example, a local gifted education group can partner with a local business organization to sponsor an informational meeting for parents and policymakers.

Winter 2006 • Temp o • Texas Association for the Gifted and Talented

Two groups supporting expanded gifted education services is stronger than one because the school board realizes that this is an issue of concern to more than just a dozen families. In addition, the members of the business organization learn more about the needs of gifted students and the services they need. As employers, business owners, and managers need highly able employees with creative and criticalthinking skills, and they are pleased to support education program designed to reach that goal. As they learn more about the students in their communities, the business leaders may also initiate internships and mentorships for many of the gifted learners in their area.

Think about coalitions as broadly as possible-there are many groups in your community and state that have an interest in education issues, child issues, and business issues that can foster natural partnerships.

3. Use the Local Media Many local and statewide media outlets would be happy to cover gifted education news stories-if they only know about them. Additionally, every newspaper has a letter-to-the-editor section. Use every opportunity to make points about the need for gifted education. Your state and federal legislators (or staff ) read the local papers so that they can keep up on issues important to constituents. Also articles and letters-to-the-editor offer the chance to reach the general public, many of who would be supportive if given the opportunity and pertinent information. Take it upon yourself to do the following: • Write letters to the editor of your local and statewide newspapers on a regular basis. Various education “decisions” made locally and in your state capital provide opportunities, or “hooks” to add a comment or two about gifted education issues. For example, is there money in your state education budget for gifted students? If not, write about it in a letter when the state funding committees meet. When national education stories appear in the paper-for example, funding for teaching training-write a letter that adds comments about the need for teachers to be trained to meet the educational needs of high-ability students.

• Identify the education reporters for the daily and weekly newspapers in your area as well as the general-interest radio talk shows. Many television stations also have community forum programs, or reporters that cover local events. Call or write them with story ideas about gifted students in your community or state.

For example, is there an academic team competition coming up that would be interesting for readers? If an education reporter covers the state capital, contact him/her about curriculum and funding decisions for gifted students. Be sure to have suggestions ready on who the reporter might interview (e.g., experts in the field, teachers, administrators, or students) or where the reporter could get additional information.

4. Other Ideas Invite Your Legislator to Visit a Gifted Program One very powerful way to make the case for gifted and talented education is to invite legislators to visit a gifted and talented program in action. Most schools would be very happy to coordinate a visit for a state or federal legislator. Local school board members should also be urged to make visits. Everyone benefits from the positive publicity and it’s an excellent way to get your message across as well as a way to begin building a relationship with the elected official’s office.

What is important is that the elected officials have the chance to observe high-ability students at work, whether it is in the classroom, in an auditorium, or on a stage.

State Advocacy Most of the important decisions about gifted education are formed at the state level, making your state legislature a great place to begin your advocacy efforts. In many cases, state legislative initiatives are coordinated by the state gifted education association with support from individuals and local parent groups.

Assessing the Landscape for Legislative Action in Your State Successful advocacy is about relationships built up over time. View it as a process that continues until you have achieved your goals. While you may already be tak-

ing some of the steps listed here, below are a number of questions to ask before committing your organization to action.

1. Issue/Initiative Assessment Take stock of the “big picture” of your issue(s) by reflecting on the following questions and action steps.

• How important is the issue to you and the learners for whom you advocate? Is it of low importance or a “fall on your sword” issue?

• What is the time frame for action?

• Has there been previous legislative activity on the issue?

• What is the current political or public climate concerning the issue?

• Has there been news coverage?

• Has the governor, state superintendent of education, or other key education leader spoken on the issue?

• What other issues will impact the fate of the initiative?

• Is there a state commission report or state supreme court decision that affects decisions related to your issue?

• Does your organization have a coordinated, clear message(s) on the issue?

• How can the issue, and your message, be packaged for public and media consumption?

• Can you tie the issue to concerns about student achievement? Economic health? Teacher retention?

2. Supporter/Opponent Assessment Who will you be working with in support of your issue? Are there groups that do not support what you propose? Consider the assets, and the obstacles: • Do you have a sponsor for your initiative in the legislature who will act as the point person?

• Where do state-level officials stand on the issue? (governor, chief state school officer?)

• Who can best carry the message? (It may not be your organization, but rather another group, or a coalition of groups that will be the strongest spokespersons.)

• Where do other key education and parent organizations stand on the issue?

• If any groups oppose your issue, are you well-versed with their position?

Winter 2006 • Temp o • Texas Association for the Gifted and Talented

17

Advocating for Gifted Education • What is the position of key business leaders or other “influentials”?

• Have other elected or appointed officials (e.g., mayors, superintendents of large school districts, school board leaders) around the state taken a position?

• Have any news outlets taken position on their educational pages, or covered the issue in a series of articles?

3. “Intelligence” Gathering It is imperative that you have information about the legislative process itself, who the key legislators are, as well as information that supports your issue and rebuts any arguments against you.

• Are you clear about the legislative process that will be followed on your issue?

(In some states there are budget battles in off years that follow a different process than in typical committee-generated work).

• Which committees in the legislature handle your issue?

• Who are they key committee members and leaders in the state legislature?

• What are the crucial dates throughout the legislative session? (Hearing dates, committee votes, budget deadlines).

• Do you have other information about key decision makers (e.g., previous votes or statements, children in g/t class, spouse who is a teacher)?

• Are there position statements or resolutions supporting your issue from other organizations and groups? (You may want to review NAGC’s Position Statements and the NAGC Pre K-12 Gifted Program Standards).

• Do you have research evidence and data and program information from your state (and the nation) to support your issue?

• Do you know what the key obstacles will be and have you discussed them with key legislators to get advice on how to overcome them?

4. Association Resource Assessment It’s time to take stock of what support your association can produce to bring the issue into the spotlight. Consider the following: • Who will be the key spokesperson for the organization?

• What percentage of your membership

18

realistically can be expected to participate in this effort?

• How much money can you allocate to develop materials to take to the legislature, for member and press mailings?

Do you have a lobbyist or legislative consultant who will help coordinate the effort?

• Can you identify influential supporters in key legislators’ districts?

• Who will be the liaison with the key legislator(s)?

• Have you identified leaders in your group who can coordinate key areas? (media contact, getting information to members and the public, contact with other groups, and visits with legislators).

5. Action Steps Now that you have determined what the organization wants to do, and is able to do, make a plan to use those resources. This may require that you triangulate among multiple issues having different levels of importance or different likelihood of success. Depending on the timeline, some strategies include: • Develop packets of information for key decision makers on your issue, making sure to continually update them with the latest research and information.

• Testify at a public hearing.

• Submit letters-to-the editor and op-ed pieces to key newspapers across the state to get public support.

• Provide information (and persons to interview) to education reporters in your state.

• Hold a press conference with the legislator who introduced your legislation.

• Invite key legislators and other officials to visit a gifted education program, to attend your state gifted education conference, or to attend a key meeting of influential supporters so that they can hear and see what your issue is all about.

• Send email alerts to organization members to keep them informed and to generate grassroots support.

• Establish a state legislative listserve to share information quickly and to field questions.

• Coordinate letters and visits from your members and supporters to the legislature.

Advocating for Gifted Education • Gather the responses to letters/impressions from meeting to share with organization members and key legislators and policymakers.

• Meet regularly with key leaders in the legislature to keep up with any changes in dates, key supporters, and important legislative language.

Advocating for Gifted Programs in Local Schools: Five Strategies Monies and resources for gifted programming are often the first to be cutback or eliminated. In every case, the need for fiscal conservatism is real-but so are the pressing academic and social-emotional needs of gifted students.

1. Examine Your Program In order to build support to retain (or develop) a program for gifted learners, it is important that you are aware of what the district currently offers for gifted students and how learners access these programs and services. Once that information is in hand, it will be possible to focus on the benefits to students and to develop strategies that ensure school leaders understand the value of gifted programming in your community. Your first stop should be to familiarize yourself with the NAGC PreK-12 Gifted Program Standards. The standards map out what the leading experts in the field view as exemplary practices as well as the bare essentials that are needed in a school to meet the needs of gifted students. This is a nationally recognized and accepted document similar to the content standards adopted by other content-based educational organization (e.g., NCTM, NCTE, NCSS) and so it provides further credibility to any arguments or plans you present to local decision makers and community leaders. You’ll note that the standards are divided into seven categories, all dealing with the various aspects of developing and providing programs and services to advanced learners.

Remember that once you have a sense of what an “ideal” gifted program looks like, you can then begin to examine and evaluate your own program. Make a list of all of the areas in which your current program is a “shining start” that meets or exceeds the standards. Then tackle the more difficult task of specifically describing the areas in which your program has fallen short of the standards. This list and your newfound understanding of the recommended best practices for providing programs and services for gifted students will give you a starting point in thinking and talking about your gifted program with others.

The question is how can you avert just such a crisis in your own school or community? Whether you are working with a group or acting on your own, the most important piece of advice we can offer is: don’t wait for an emergency to begin building support for gifted programs and services. There is truth to the old adage that chance favors the prepared. So, start building support today with the following five suggestions:

2. Establish a Rationale Bear in mind as you speak with administrators and community members, your goal is to educate others about why gifted learners really do need something different, educationally speaking. It is imperative that you make your rationale for supporting programs and services as clear and informative as possible while also keeping the needs of gifted children front and center. Therefore, your resource col-

State Gifted Education Association Resources There are statewide gifted education associations in most states that advocate on behalf of gifted students. Many of these groups focus on legislative advocacy in their state capitals; most also offer a range of education opportunities, including statewide and regional conferences for teachers and parents. By joining your state group, you will have access to a variety of resources and projects that you might become involved.

Snapshot of the Country In many cases, comparing how your state sizes up to neighboring states and the nation is an effective advocacy strategy. For example, do the neighboring states fund gifted education? And if so, at what level?

Do they require teacher training? How many states mandate gifted education services? Having the data available for fact sheets to support a legislative agenda and for letters-to-the-editor can help others understand your state’s relative strengths (or weaknesses) in supporting gifted learners.

Winter 2006 • Temp o • Texas Association for the Gifted and Talented

lection for developing a rationale should be twofold: you will need resources about policies and practices (i.e., state and local mandates, district policies and practices, and definitions concerning gifted education, national reports recommending best practices, as well as the NAGC Program Standards and Position Statements), and you will need resources about the needs of gifted students (i.e., local demographics, why do we need gifted education, ERIC Digests). Once others have an understanding that gifted students need something different, then you can demonstrate how specific programs for which you are advocating relate back to the standards and policies and meet the unique needs of gifted students in your school and community.

3. Brush Up on Your Communication Skills There are many different groups of people in your school and community that would be willing to lend support for high-ability students, but they need to understand the issue. Remember your job is to get the message out.

4. Build A Bridge for Administrators School administrators are deeply concerned about ensuring educational excellence for all of their students; however, many are unaware of the unique needs of advanced learners. As you plan your campaign for increased awareness and understanding with this key group of decision makers, recognize that at every level their entire day is packed with a wide range of educational and managerial crises.

Therefore, your plan must be both artful and efficient. Consider the impact of sharing a brief article like “Nine Truths About Working with Gifted Students” from the National Association of Elementary School Principals (NAESP) that describes the value of gifted education as well as how to make it work administratively or the goodwill created by inviting the superintendent to attend a culminating event with your students and their families. You might also offer to brief school administrators at the beginning of the year about the local population of high-potential learners including an upbeat, yet honest, overview of the current state of gifted programming in your district.

5. Network, Network, Network Once you have a rationale and a message in place, you need to make sure that gifted education stays in the limelight. The best way to do this is to celebrate your success (and conversely, share your woes) with other people who care about gifted learners and the future of gifted education.

There are many positive, active ways to meet like-minded individuals and begin an open dialogue in your community.

Consider your options, you can: • Become an active participant in local school groups like the PTO or booster club.

• Offer to provide a speaker for local service organizations (e.g., Lions Club, Chamber of Commerce, etc.) about your gifted program and its ties to the community.

• Volunteer to serve on school committees involved with strategic planning, accountability, or program evaluation and planning.

• Form your own local support organization that works to inform your community and district about the needs of high-ability students.

• Get to know the education reporters for your local media outlets-they may be interested in covering gifted programs in local schools or highlighting student achievements.

• Join a gifted organization (like TAGT or NAGC) that advocates for a challenging and appropriate education for gifted learners.

Reprinted with permission from the National Association for Gifted Children.

Winter 2006 • Temp o • Texas Association for the Gifted and Talented

19

Parent Groups

Advocating for Gifted Education already discussed a parent group with the district or other parents, try to include known basic needs.

•

Getting Started and Staying Strong

By Lori Lewis

Parent groups for the gifted fill many needs in the state of Texas. For anyone who is in a group or thinking about beginning a group, this article will answer some of those tough questions that address how to get started and how to stay strong.

•

•

•

•

•

20

Get the word out! A great start begins with a little help. Ask your gifted coordinator, superintendent’s office, or school board about your district’s interest in starting a parent group.

Ask them for a contact person who can give permission to send home a meeting notice for an organizational meeting.

Your local newspaper will also publish meeting notices at no cost or could do a story for you. Smaller papers are always looking for the latest and greatest to write about. You may consider writing an article and submitting it for publication. Small papers have a limited staff and they appreciate an article that doesn’t need to be assigned.

If you have trouble finding a meeting place, check on the availability of your local library’s meeting room. The rooms are usually available at no cost and a reservation must be made. This is also a terrific place to post a notice on the community bulletin board.

Keep your information basic and stress that it is an organizational meeting. This will open the interest to many parents who will understand the group is a blank slate and may be able to address their own personal needs.

When planning this first meeting, be mindful of working parents’ schedules.

Also, deal breakers for parents can be midweek church meeting nights, standing PTA nights, and the sport of the season.

Get organized! To get ready for your meeting, prepare an agenda to facilitate on-topic discussion. If you have

Fall 2005 • Temp o • Texas Association for the Gifted and Talented

•

•

•

Plan to get people involved right away. Ask several people to welcome parents, take notes, or pass around a clipboard for people to include their contact information. Don’t forget to get e-mail addresses. Ask people to introduce themselves and tell one sentence about why they are there. You will want to get a feel for the group and give parents the opportunity to express their interests without opening the floor to a lengthy discussion from each contributor.

Several key items consider for your agenda. Discuss and decide whether you will be a support group, advocacy group, or a blend of both. A support group will focus on providing activities for gifted kids. An advocacy group will focus primarily on advancing the interests of the gifted population.

make meetings when it is convenient to your temporary board and parents.

Try to accommodate their schedule by meeting with them with one or two parents from your board.

•

•

Brainstorm a name for your group.

You may want it to reflect a particular district, region, grade or other group.

For example, you may only want to support elementary programs or perhaps a specific magnet school.

Ask for people to volunteer to take roles. The best success will result from asking volunteers to be tempory help. Give some duration of time such as 2 months or until the end of the semester. Most parents are willing to try something new and step up if they know it is a “try it” and/or “temporary” situation.

If possible, invite a TAGT representative or a nearby parent group leader to help you work through your meetings.

These contacts can be found on the TAGT Web site http://www.txgifted. org. TAGT is devoted to supporting parent groups and is eager to help with connecting you to resources.

•

Stay strong! Join TAGT. Once you are a member, your contact person will begin getting lots of information about opportunities and needs in Texas. This is a time where your e-mail distribution list is extra handy for sharing.

Discuss where and how often you would like to meet to plan your group’s structure. Give examples or a “how to find examples” handout of resources.

•

The Hurst-Euless-Bedford Association for Gifted and Talented’s Web site has great resources. Check it out at http://www.hebagt.org.

• Invite district representatives to work with you in this process. It will be important for them to become a part of your team. Depending on their responsibilities, they may not be able to

•

Write an electronic newsletter several times a year. Forward the TAGT newsletter. People still love paper so make an effort to put out a paper newsletter at least once a year. Make sure everyone has your board members’ contact information.

•

Continually research what the needs of your group are. Survey your members to see what is most important to them. Call members to discuss their needs. If possible, survey your teachers or district representatives to get feedback on where your group can best help.

As an example, our by-laws include the following: Name of Group, Articles of Organization, Basic Policies, • Membership & Dues, Officers and Their Election, Duties of Officers, Executive Committee, Meetings, Standing and Ad Hoc Committees, Fiscal and Auditing Committee, and Parliamentary Authority.

Membership is solicited from flyers • that go home to all the gifted students and newspaper notices. Our dues are $10 a school year per family.

•

•

•

Plan a second meeting to specifically work on how you want your group organized and what it will do. Research other parent groups or the links through the TAGT (Texas Association for the Gifted and Talented) to find resources for creating the structure of your group. The by-laws of existing organizations are a great place to start. Bring copies of section 5 of the State Plan for Gifted Education. This section addresses things the district can or should be doing. You may find ideas in this document of items your group would like to help achieve.

send it on to all of our members. An e-mail account also gives members a way to send communications to you.

You then can route them to the person with the right answer in a timely manner or in confidence.

Build relationships in the community.

Ours include the district, libraries, churches, private businesses, professional people such as artists or drama coaches, and state or national programs.

You will soon find that by following these suggestions your group will fall together and become stronger in numbers and efforts. Many parent groups do very well when there is an identified concern. However, ours is doing very well just by being a support entity for parents and the district. By following the recommendations in this article, your group will grow and stay strong.

Communication is key. Consider an e-mail address, Web site, discussion group, or an e-mail distribution list.

I simply added a free account onto my personal contract. I narrow down everything I get to only items that address our particular membership and

Winter 2006 • Temp o • Texas Association for the Gifted and Talented

21

Advocating for Gifted Education

Book Reviews Losing Our Minds: Gifted Children Left Behind (ISBN 0910707-70-7) is Deborah L. Ruf’s portrait of 78 gifted and highly gifted children. Ruf ascribes her own five levels of giftedness to these individuals in order for parents to gauge behaviors and characteristics. The levels of giftedness are then extended developmentally from early childhood to college and career planning.

This book also contains practical information on parenting, school issues, educational opportunities, and social/emotional awareness. For more information, contact: Great Potential Press, P.O. Box 5057, Scottsdale, AZ 85261; (887) 954-4200; http://www. giftedbooks.com.

The Handbook of Secondary Gifted Education (ISBN 1-59363178-2) is a compendium of some of the most pertinent topic in secondary gifted education written by leading experts in the field of gifted education. Much of what is written in the field focuses on the elementary level. A book that focuses solely on the needs of those of the secondary level could not be timelier. Researchbased topics include gifted adolescents, social/emotional issues, curricular best practices and instruction, teacher education, professional development, and programming options. For more information, contact: Prufrock Press Inc., P.O. Box 8813, Waco, TX 76714; (800) 998-2208; http://www.prufrock.com.

A much-needed text has finally been offered to address the often-overlooked needs of gifted students at the middle school level.

Educating Gifted Students in Middle School (ISBN 1-59363-164-2) practically and theoretically examines middle school programs for the gifted from several varying points of view. Topics covered include the nature and needs of gifted middle school students, reform movements, program models, the gifted teacher, curricular and instructional strategies, differentiating instruction, special populations, books and reading, and out-of-school opportunities.

For more information, contact: Prufrock Press Inc., P.O. Box 8813, Waco, TX 76714; (800) 998-2208; http://www.prufrock.com.

The Practical Strategies Series in Gifted Education, written by the foremost experts in the field of gifted education is a distinctive set of books aimed at practitioners in the field of gifted education. Administrators, teachers, counselor, parents, and any other individuals who work with gifted students will find this series practical in nature with many tried and true examples and suggestions. The 13 titles in the series include:

Many might think that one would lose her sense of humor raising five children in the wilds of Montana. However, Karen Isaacson has turned her adventures in motherhood into a humorous tale. Raisin’ Brains, Surviving My Smart Family (ISBN 0-910707-54-5) is a compilation of Isaacson’s real-life anecdotes and practical insights in rearing gifted children. The book is an easy read and lends perspective to what can sometimes seem like overwhelming or insurmountable situations with gifted children (or children in general) by finding the humor in the most unlikely situations. For more information, contact: Great Potential Press, P.O. Box 5057, Scottsdale, AZ 85261; (887) 954-4200; http://www. giftedbooks.com.

22

Advocating for Gifted Education

Winter 2006 • Temp o • Texas Association for the Gifted and Talented

• Acceleration Strategies for Teaching Gifted Learners • Curriculum Compacting: Differentiating for High-Potential Students • Developing Mentorship Programs for Gifted Students • Enrichment Opportunities for Gifted Learners • Fostering Creativity in Gifted Students • Identifying Gifted Students: A Step-by-Step Guide • Inventions and Inventing for Gifted Students • Independent Study for Gifted Learners • Motivating Gifted Students • Questioning Strategies for Teaching the Gifted • Social & Emotional Teaching Strategies • Teaching Culturally Diverse Gifted Students • Using Media & Technology With Gifted Learners For more information, contact: Prufrock Press Inc., P.O. Box 8813, Waco, TX 76714; (800) 998-2208; http://www.prufrock.com.

Winter 2006 • Temp o • Texas Association for the Gifted and Talented

23

Student-Created Public Relations for Gifted Education

by Amy Bisland

Advocating for Gifted Education As funding for education continues to face cuts across the nation, a great need for public relations for gifted education emerges. When school districts look for places to save money, programs that serve gifted students are sometimes viewed as expendable (Kiger, 1998). As a result, it is the job of anyone who wishes to advocate for the needs of gifted students to create an awareness among the school and community that services for gifted students are necessary and contribute to the overall development of the child.

Characteristics and needs of high-ability learners should be shared, as well as justification for alternate curricula and instruction (Lewis & Karnes, 2001). Similar to accomplishments in the area of rights for the disabled, sharing the efforts and results of proper environment and instruction can create a level of social support for gifted programming (Brennan, Miller, & Brennan, 2000).

Positive social awareness can be achieved through a comprehensive public relations campaign employing various strategies and targeting many different audiences. A successful campaign may result in more internal school support for the gifted program, with the community looking favorably upon both the school and the gifted program (Brennan et al., 2000). Public relations for programs should not be sporadic, but instead a systematic and ongoing project that follows a well-thought-out plan (Ediger, 2001).

Karnes, Lewis, and Stephens (1999) argued that campaigns should be continuous, systematic, and planned, but also stated the need for evaluation of the effectiveness of each strategy used. Another point of consensus is that public relations should be proactive, rather than reactive (Ediger; Karnes, et al.). When media organizations are left to find and develop stories on their own, they may choose to focus on negative things that might be occurring in a school district, such as low test scores or a specific discipline issue.

By supplying information to these sources about positive student accomplishments, projects, and learning, teachers are more likely to see supportive coverage in all areas of the media.

Although there is reasoning to support the need for public relations for gifted education, the reality of putting a

26

campaign into place can seem time-consuming to teachers who are already feeling overwhelmed. Teachers of the gifted often play several roles within their schools and feel that their time is best spent planning instruction and teaching students. This may leave a perception of little time to devote to a new project such as a public relations campaign. However, what if the public relations campaign, instructional planning, and teaching all came together?

By planning a unit on public relations for gifted students, teachers can incorporate process skills, leadership skills, and reallife application while simultaneously gaining publicity for programs that often need as much positive exposure as possible.

Many skills and areas for development that have been suggested for use with gifted students mirror the skills used in implementing a public relations campaign. Upon surveying 62 teachers of the gifted about classroom practices, Rash and Miller (2000) found that teaching process skills ranked high among a list of priorities for gifted students. In detailing which of the process skills these teachers used, they found that problem solving, critical thinking, and research were each taught by over 90% of those surveyed.

However, fewer teachers taught communication skills (75%) and personal growth and human relations (58%). Process skills such as verbal communication, written communication, creative thinking, personal growth and human relations skills, and critical thinking and reasoning skills could all be taught as part of an ongoing public relations project. Although it is important to teach each of the process skills, it is also important not to teach these skills to gifted students in isolation. The goal is to have students transfer their learning to other areas of their lives. It is also recommended that they be consistently used over time, rather than taught separately once a year (VanTassel-Baska, 1994).

Another area often targeted in gifted education is leadership. Rash and Miller (2000) found that only 65% of gifted teachers responding to their survey incorporated leadership skills into their instructional programs. As with process skills, many aspects of leadership education are also present in planning for a public relations campaign. The Leadership Skills Inventory, an instrument

Advocating for Gifted Education designed to measure leadership skills in youth, contains subscales in the areas of fundamentals of leadership, written communication skills, speech communication skills, character-building skills, decision-making skills, group dynamics skills, problem-solving skills, personal skills, and planning skills (Karnes & Chauvin, 2000). Although planning and implementing public relations does not necessarily incorporate all of these skills, it exposes students to different forms of written communication while allowing them to make decisions about working and planning together. Students are able to set goals and timelines while learning to follow through with a plan. They also learn to encourage one another and work with a wide variety of students toward a common goal (Karnes & Bean, 1990a).

Combining Skills Through Public Relations As certain as teachers are responsible for teaching process skills and leadership skills to students, they also have a need to promote the gifted program in their school and local community. By combining the two tasks, everyone has an opportunity to benefit.

The first step in this project is a formal unit of instruction on public relations. The objective of this unit is for students to use a variety of written, verbal, and electronic communication to gather support for gifted education. Teachers should instruct their students on various forms of media such as newspapers, magazines, television, radio, brochures, and the Internet. They should also expose students to other public relations strategies such as stickers, posters, bookmarks, T-shirts, and billboards (Lewis & Karnes, 2001). The Kid’s Guide to Service Projects (Lewis, 1995) serves as a useful resource for teachers who are instructing students on public relations. It includes examples and step-by-step instructions for strategies such as flyers, petitions, press releases, proclamations, proposals, public service announcements, and surveys.

Guest speakers from the media industry are also available to assist students in learning how to publicize information and format written documents. An example press release can be found on the following page.

Winter 2006 • Temp o • Texas Association for the Gifted and Talented

SEUM

U TS M E AR

u al t s ann i t n e s ll pre LE M stum wi TH E a r U cl u d e g o n O i r S l P l i d e lente um w ill t ak muse nd Ta w a e s r d Th u e o . if t 2 003 de d t y ’s G obby.

5–9, . Gui entar s h n m c o r e ary L i l t a t i E n s M e o h t p n Elem S ou um o l com South u sic a e Muse h s m t t r n d A rk an ning i Fine begin ar two t d h e g t i crea ach n dent8:00 e – 0 ional 0 : blic. m7 ensat u o S r p , f s e e e plac to th d nturi er, an is free he Ce n t n r o h o i g s C s i ou lo dy Adm s Thr w of d Me n nting i a a er vie y P v n o e o d n u m a l lude , Ha r t s inc ntact ill inc xhibi dne ss w e a s d ase co M r e e u l r a o i p u t t d n Fea atio ltime ucted inform -cond s , Mu t e e n r r e u o t d .us. rm Stu S c ulp sd.k12 it. Fo s acts. b r i @ t h s h t x b ach e e.smi ing A at jan ts to e Amaz l i i s i a v m and 5 or e stor y 5-555 5 5 art hi ) 5 at (55 mith S e n a J RY EN TA

FIN

Advocating for Gifted Education Students should participate in simulations where they plan an event or project and develop products to promote and create awareness of their chosen topic.

Through this experience, they learn how to format a press release, as well as how to write a cover letter to send to an organization with brochures, information, or other items. Mock interviews on fictional news programs or simulated radio interviews in the classroom also serve as learning opportunities for students. Each of these activities will lay the foundation for applications later in the school year.

After learning basic public relations skills, students need to begin to learn how to plan a long-term public relations campaign. First, they need to determine the target audience of their campaign.

Although the format might change to fit specific groups, the basic message of the benefits of gifted programming will remain the same throughout the campaign (Lewis & Karnes, 2001). Groups such as business leaders, community leaders, religious leaders, psychologists, counselors, school personnel, or legislators might be possible audiences for the materials students produce (Kiger, 1998). Other audiences may include friends, neighbors, parents, school boards, civic organizations, or the general public (Lewis & Karnes).

After determining the target in promoting the gifted program, the students’ next step is to determine when. Together with their teacher, students brainstorm the events throughout the school year they know could be shared with the public. They also develop a basic timeline of goals, clearly stating each of their goals and when they would like to accomplish them.

Depending upon the class and teacher, the timeline should include one strategy per month or one strategy per term. Each member of the class may choose to keep a copy of the timeline, or it may be posted in the classroom as a reminder. Each student should also develop a personal timeline designating personal responsibilities and due dates for the projects.

Once the timeline has been developed, members of the class must decide upon how they will follow through with their plans. Will time be set aside once a month to work on public relations? Will there be time in-between each unit of instruction? Will it be a project they work

28

on independently as time allows or if they finish another project early? Will each project be assigned to a different person, or will the whole group be responsible for each item? These decisions can be made exclusively by the teacher or through cooperative efforts of the teacher and students. After the decisions have been made, the class should begin implementing the public relations campaign.

Student Strategies for Public Relations Students will generate many ideas for things they would like to promote and publicize within the school and the gifted program. Even if not undertaking a comprehensive public relations campaign, teachers may choose to use one or two strategies to create awareness. Students should be aware of their goals before selecting a specific strategy in order to ensure the best choice. Developing a group goal statement is helpful in this process (Lewis & Karnes, 2001). The following are only a few suggestions of projects that students could complete throughout the year.

After learning how to format a press release, students can quickly and easily write short press releases about events in their gifted program and in their school.

These are completed and sent with a photograph each time a unit of study is completed. Projects that have been developed by students either individually or as a group make excellent photographs to show to the public. Guest speakers and field trips are also opportunities to share with the community.

Another way to share what is happening in the gifted program is through a scrapbook, which can be an important tool in promoting a positive image of gifted programming (Horowitz, 1996).

Once a month, students update a scrapbook that contains samples of their products, photographs of projects, narratives about student learning, or anything else that represents the program. This book can be displayed at PTA meetings, open houses, community events, or even the school lobby in order to inform others about what is happening in the gifted program.

While scrapbooks give school and community members a glimpse into the program on paper, school tours are a fun way to give those same people a more

Advocating for Gifted Education personal perspective (“VIP Tour,” 1991).

Students in the gifted program can be trained as tour guides to talk about everything that is happening in a given school, not just the gifted program. Community and business leaders are sent written invitations to come to an official tour day at the school. Upon arrival, each leader is assigned to a student who takes the guests on a tour of various classrooms and highlights the positive learning programs, including the gifted program. Students may also choose to research the history of their school and include these facts as part of their tour. Students may perfect their verbal communication skills with these visitors, and, in turn, these visitors may also become potential new advocates for the program (Lewis & Karnes, 2001).

This strategy helps build a bridge for the entire school with the community, whose support is so important to gifted programming (Kiger, 1998).

Another face-to-face strategy for communication involves the use of television. Many local television stations have morning or noon programs that allow guests to present information or to participate in an interview. Although this strategy might be used on a limited basis, a teacher can arrange for a group of students to appear on one of these programs to talk about an upcoming program, project, or performance. Students may also have the opportunity to appear as guests on morning radio programs to talk about activities in their gifted program. This is also a wonderful opportunity to promote school or program fundraisers or to communicate with parents about meetings or special events. By supplying the stories to both television and radio, accuracy is increased and the format ensures that local schools are portrayed positively (Ediger, 2001).

Another way to make the community aware of the gifted program is through student performances and displays. After studying music of different time periods, students write or perform songs from different genres of music. This type of performance could not only be done for the school at a PTA meeting, but could also take place at a local meeting. Student displays of projects or art are appreciated whether displayed at a library, mall, or any other community location. Both per-

Winter 2006 • Temp o • Texas Association for the Gifted and Talented

formances and displays show the public a sample of what is accomplished in the gifted program (Kiger, 1998).

A final simple task that students can produce is a class newsletter, which can be developed monthly or once per term.

These newsletters may contain information for parents on classroom instruction and learning, as well as student poetry or stories. Upcoming events or needs of the classroom in terms of materials or guest speakers can also be announced in order to communicate information quickly with a large audience.

With assistance from their teacher, students can incorporate each of the previously discussed strategies into gifted classrooms. In addition to generating awareness in the community for the gifted program, students are gaining much needed skills in a real-life situation. They are learning to become more effective written communicators through the writing of press releases and letters. Verbal communication skills are also sharpened when they participate in such activities as school tours and television or radio interviews. Students gain invaluable planning skills by working with their classmates to choose when and where each strategy should be used. They also learn how to work effectively with a group and how to make decisions.

Evaluation is the final component of both the public relations campaign and of student learning throughout the yearlong project. Students should determine before completing each strategy what they want to accomplish through the project. The goal of a community tour day might be to have 10 community leaders attend. The goal of a television appearance might be increased participation in an upcoming fundraiser. By outlining what the result of each activity should be, students will know if their efforts were successful or require additional work (Karnes & Bean, 2001a).

Teachers will also want to evaluate student progress throughout the year to document if participating in the various public relations activities brought increases in leadership and process skills.

Commercially produced materials such as the Leadership Skills Inventory (Karnes & Chauvin, 2000) and the Process Skills Rating Scales (Karnes & Bean, 1990b) can

be used to compare student levels at the beginning of the year to those at the end of the year. Teachers may also develop their own checklists or assessments to test their personal instructional goals for the project.

Student public relations can be an ongoing project throughout the year in a gifted program. Not only will students have the opportunity to learn valuable leadership and process skills, but they will also be able to practice those skills in real-life applications. By devoting a small amount of time throughout the year to public relations, teachers and students will make a long-lasting impact on both their own lives and the lives of others who will learn about the gifted program.

Lewis, J. D., & Karnes, F. A. (2001). Public relations and advocacy for the gifted.

In F.A. Karnes & S. M. Bean (Eds.), Methods and materials for teaching the gifted (pp. 635–672). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

Rash, P. K., & Miller, A. D. (2000). A survey of practices of teachers of the gifted.

Roeper Review, 22(3), 192–194.

VanTassel-Baska, J. (1994). Comprehensive curriculum for gifted learners. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

VIP tour is public relations tour-de-force for school district. (1991, October).

Curriculum Review, 31, 13.

Reprinted with the permission of Prufrock Press (http://www.prufrock.com), Gifted Child Today v26 n2 p60-65 Spr 2003.

References Brennan, K. B., Miller, A. D., & Brennan, J.P., II. (2000). Promoting a positive image: Public relations strategies for special educators. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 19(1), 26–30.

Ediger, M. (2001). Effective school public relations. Education, 121, 743–750.

Horowitz, S. (1996). What to do after your story gets covered by the media?

Thrust for Educational Leadership, 25(4), 22–23.

Karnes, F. A., & Bean, S. M. (1990a).

Developing leadership in gifted youth (Report No. EDO-EC-90-4).

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED321490) Karnes, F. A., & Bean, S. M. (1990b).

Process skills rating scales. Buffalo, NY: United Educational Services.

Karnes, F. A., & Chauvin, J. C. (2000).

Leadership skills inventory. Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press.

Karnes, F. A., Lewis, J. D., & Stephens, K. R. (1999). Parents and teachers working together for advocacy through public relations. Gifted Child Today, 22(1), 14–18.

Kiger, L. (1998). Public relations for gifted education. Gifted Child Today, 21(5), 42–44.

Lewis, B. A. (1995). The kid’s guide to service projects. Minneapolis, MN: Free Spirit.

Winter 2006 • Temp o • Texas Association for the Gifted and Talented

29

Advocating for Gifted Education

What D oes the Resear ch

Say About : y c a c o v d A e t a d An Up

by

Susan K. Johnsen, Alexandra Shiu and Sarah Feuerbacher

30

Winter 2006 • Temp o • Texas Association for the Gifted and Talented

Advocating for Gifted Education In a previous Tempo, we reviewed articles published between 1991-2001 about advocacy (see Johnsen, S. K., & Feuerbacher, S. [2002]. What the research says about advocacy. Tempo, 22[4], 2630). We defined advocacy using Swassing and Holcomb’s (1992) definition: a way of making decision-makers and stakeholders aware of the policies that mitigate for and against appropriate education for the gifted. These characteristics describe advocates: • individuals or a group, • spontaneous or organized, • systematic or random, • speaking for themselves or as intercessors on other’s behalf, and • educating legislators, administrators, teachers, and the general public about specific issues that may influence gifted children and their education (Rosenstein & Dettmer, 1991; Swassing & Holcomb, 1992).

In this article, we update the previous review by adding new advocacy articles published between 2001-2005 in Gifted Child Quarterly, Gifted Education International, Journal for the Education of the Gifted, The Journal of Secondary Gifted Education and Roeper Review.

Similar to the previous review, the article needed to focus primarily on the process of building advocacy rather than on the advocate’s target--specific issues or services. All articles that addressed advocacy were included, even those that were primarily descriptive in nature. These selection criteria identified 24 articles that were published between 1991-2005, an increase of only eight new articles with six of those in a special issue of Gifted Child Quarterly. Of these, eight were case studies (Delcourt, 2003: Enerson, 2003 ; Grantham, 2003; Hertzog, 2003; Kennedy, 2003; Renzulli & Reis, 1991; Ridges, 2000; Robinson & Moon, 2003), four were surveys (Douglas, 2004; Karnes & Riley, 1997; Larsen, Griffin, & Larsen, 1994), one was a review of the literature (Begin & Gagné, 1994), and the remainder provided advice to potential advocates. Given the small

number of new articles, advocacy still remains a low priority area among researchers who write for the major journals in the field of gifted education.

Three of the articles examined attitudes toward gifted education. Begin and Gagné (1994) did not find any single variable that influenced perceptions toward gifted education; however, those who perceive themselves as gifted, intelligent, or more academic did have a slightly more positive attitudes. Karnes and Riley (1997) and Larsen, Griffin and Larsen (1994) found support for gifted education as long as the quality of the regular education classroom was not affected. The public wanted the schools to do more, but not necessarily to spend more on gifted education. Since Baker and Friedmand-Nimz (2001) found that mandates alone do not guarantee services for gifted students, these survey results identify one of the challenges for advocates—encouraging mandates with additional funding.

Advocates may be parents, professionals from all levels of education, and even gifted students. Douglas (2004) describes how students were trained to increase their understanding of available differentiation options and were then able to communicate their knowledge to gifted advocates, including their parents, teachers, and the G/T coordinator. To be successful, advocates do not necessarily have to be organized (Kennedy, 2003) or have large numbers (Robinson & Moon, 2003). Effective advocates do need to have passions for the cause, careful preparation, inspiration, perseverance, ability to take advantage of serendipity, practical problem solving skills, and knowledge about the issue, who to contact, and how to build groups (Alvino, 1991; Delcourt, 2003; Enerson, 2003; Hertzog, 2003; Rosenstein & Dettmer, 1991; Robinson & Moon, 2003; Ross, 1991).

In these studies, parents and educators successfully advocated for specific changes: new legislation at the state level (Delcourt, 2003), a mandate for state services (Enerson, 2003), greater representa-

tion of Black students in gifted programs (Grantham, 2003), a revised district policy for gifted students in the general education classroom (Hertzog, 2003), developing a district policy and programs for gifted students (Ridges, 2000) and the expansion of gifted programs in a rural district in the face of diminished state support and local budget cuts(Kennedy, 2003). The researchers in these articles consistently emphasize the importance of identifying clear goals and knowing what is possible within the given funding and political constraints (Delcourt, 2003; Dettmer, 1991; Enerson, 2003; Gallagher, 1991; Grantham, 2003; Kennedy, 2003; Robinson & Moon, 2003; Shaklee, Padak, Barton, & Johnson, 1991; Swassing & Holcomb, 1992).

Besides establishing knowledge and clear goals, specific advocacy strategies that are frequently mentioned include making the public aware of important issues (Alvino, 1991; Kennedy, 2003; Robinson & Moon, 2003), developing partnerships with someone or a group who has power (Alvino, 1991; Delcourt, 2003; Dettmer, 1991; Enerson, 2003; Robinson & Moon, 2003; Ross, 1991; Schatz, 1991; Shaklee, Padak, Baron, & Johnson, 1991; Ridges, 2000; Swassing & Holcomb, 1992; Todd & Larson, 1992), establishing strong communication (Delcourt, 2003; Enerson, 2003; Kennedy, 2003; Robinson & Moon, 2003; Shaklee, Padak, Barton, & Johnson, 1991), maintaining regular contact with partners (Alvino, 1991; Delcourt, 2003; Enerson, 2003; Kennedy, 2003; Robinson & moon, 2003; Shaklee, Padak, Barton, & Johnson, 1991), and publicizing benefits and disseminating materials (Alvino, 1991; Enerson, 2003; Kennedy, 2003). Building partnerships and finding a key advocate is essential. As Enerson (2003) describes in her case study, “He was our temperature gauge for letting us know exactly what was going on at the Capitol and the feel for everything. He was the one person we could call any time of the day or night and get good solid advice. We learned so many lessons from these people that we

Winter 2006 • Temp o • Texas Association for the Gifted and Talented

31

Advocating for Gifted Education

Advocating for Gifted Education

just would not have known otherwise, such as the wisdom of introducing the bill in both the House and the Senate at the same time. It meant double work, but it also doubled our chances that one of them would survive” (p. 41).

Becoming part of general education reform issues still appears to be an important aspect of building a broad base of support. For example, Hertzog (2003), suggests, “The policy that ‘all students who are capable of doing so will be provided accelerated and enriched instruction’ is on the forefront of both general and gifted educational reform efforts” (p. 66) and has a greater chance of being adopted by both educator groups.

Irvine (1991) reported that inequities in access to programs and difficulties in assuring program quality were negative factors and affected mandates for gifted education. In all advocacy cases, the successful groups are those who have “tailored their strategies to adapt to their environments, which has allowed them to accomplish their goals more effectively” (Delcourt, 2003, p. 26).

Alvino, J. (1991). Media relations: What every advocate should know about the tricks of the trade. Gifted Child Quarterly, 35, 204-209.

This article examines how the use of media technology can enhance advocacy efforts for gifted education and programs.

Alvino provides three rules for public relations: (a)make an inside contact and maintain it, (b) learn what is newsworthy, (c) and learn the distinction between form and content. The author provides insightful information, helpful tips, and strategies for using different media forms: news releases, features, magazines, journals, newsletters, radio, television, and news conferences. Alvino also introduces his Driver-Rider Matrix as a strategy for enhancing the image of an organization.

“Piggyback on the reputation, image, or marketability of someone or some organization (the driver) with the power to carry or ‘transport’ your cause (the rider) to

32

prominence in the public or professional eye” (p. 205).

Baker, B. D., & Friedman-Nimz, R. (2002).

Is a federal mandate the answer? If so, what was the question? Roeper Review, 25, 10.

Using a creative problem solving approach, the authors examine the need for a federal mandate. They conclude that mandates alone do not guarantee that local districts provide programs for gifted students. They simply require documentation that districts are doing “something” with their resources. Mandates with funding provide local capacity to purchase “well trained specialists, necessary materials, supplies, equipment, and transportation and support the costs associated with the use of school staff, allowing local districts to offer adequate differentiated programming for gifted children and identify children who require such programming” (p. 9) without depriving other programs.

Advocates and lobbyists should shift their energies to informing state legislators of the special educational needs of gifted children and appropriate programming models by disseminating research and advocacy materials. Advocates should have knowledge of program outcomes and their costs.

Begin, J., & Gagné, F. (1994). Predictors of attitudes toward gifted education: A review of the literature and a blueprint for future research. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 17, 161-179.

Begin and Gagné offer potential predictors of attitudes regarding gifted education so that new enrichment coordinators might identify individuals who may be more prone to resistance or opposition. Over fifty different variables from thirty-five studies were analyzed to identify twenty-seven characteristics that might share a common denominator or pattern. Overall, the study found that those who perceive themselves as more academic, intelligent, or gifted

and talented presented a slightly more positive attitude towards gifted students and programs. However, no single factor or variable was found to be statistically significant and substantial in determining a person’s attitude toward gifted and talented education. Recommendations are provided for future studies.

Delcourt, M. A. B. (2003). Five ingredients for success: Two case studies of advocacy at the state level. Gifted Child Quarterly, 47, 26-37.

This study describes two successful advocacy events that resulted in legislative changes at the state level. Using a historical research design, the researcher conducted six open-ended interviews with Site A and five interviews with Site B in person or by phone. The participants were asked to describe the advocacy event and their role in the process. Artifacts such as advocacy handbooks, newspaper articles, and newsletters were used to gather information and analyze group processes and individual efforts. Results indicated that both sites met their goals by (a) establishing strong communication networks that had continued membership recruitment, (b) having clearly stated goals and regular meetings, (c) holding regular training opportunities, (d) holding regular visits with legislators, (e) having the capacity to act quickly on a fortuitous situation, (f) clearly representing their goals regarding needs of the gifted and all students, and (g) having the support of at least one influential individual. The characteristics of the leaders that contributed to the success of the events included passion for the cause, careful preparation and planning that allowed for effective implementation and public responses, inspiration, perseverance, and the ability to take advantage of serendipity.

Dettmer, P. (1991). Gifted program advocacy: Overhauling bandwagons to build support. Gifted Child Quarterly, 35, 165-172.

Winter 2006 • Temp o • Texas Association for the Gifted and Talented

After a Delphi study found that advocacy was ranked in last place among twelve gifted issues needing attention, Dettmer expressed a need for “advocates for advocacy” so that gifted and talented education might gain a lasting place in all public school education. The author lists these focus areas for gifted and talented advocacy: (a) promoting gifted education judiciously, (b) developing support among many different role groups, and (c) strengthening support levels within the role groups. A list of political, educational, and community groups are provided for building advocacy partnerships. A diagram of advocacy stages and a summary of key points are added to help build gifted program support.

Douglas, D. (2004). Self-advocacy: Encouraging students to become partners in differentiation. Roeper Review, 26, 223-228.

The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of direct teaching on gifted students’ understanding of their rights and responsibilities. Twenty-three accelerated students in seventh grade and their parents completed surveys assessing their perceptions regarding self-advocacy.

The students then participated in five seminars, each lasting the length of one class period, and completed the surveys at the end of the year. Almost all of the students were more comfortable with self-advocating after the intervention.

Students increased their understanding of themselves as learners, increased their understanding of their available differentiation options, and increased their communication with gifted advocates, including their parents, teachers, and the G/T coordinator.

Enersen, D. (2003). The art of bridge building: Providing for gifted children.

Gifted Child Quarterly, 47, 38-45.

This case study identified four phases of advocacy efforts in the successful construction of a state mandate for gifted ed-

ucation. The first phase was ascertaining the need for the structure and creating a blueprint for the mandate by (a) building relationships with key people and policymakers, (b) becoming knowledgeable about the legislative process, (c) building affiliate groups, and (d) setting goals and making commitments to the process. The second phase involved further development of the plan by (a) effectively publicizing efforts, (b) keeping everyone involved on the same page, (c) remaining committed to the mission, and (d) knowing what is possible with the given funding and political constraints. Phase three included the implementation of the mandate by (a) publicizing the benefits, (b) saying thanks, and (c) developing regulations. Phase four was maintaining the relationships made during the process and designing a new vision for direction and action.

the important components contributing to the success of advocacy efforts. Sources of data included interviews of 38 individuals involved with the advocacy event along with archival documents. Changes brought about by the advocacy efforts included educators altering their traditional view of giftedness and the promotion of equity in GT programs. In fact, within a decade of the Pulaski advocacy event, there has been a 12% increase of Black students served in the district’s gifted programs. Grantham raises the question of whether a federal mandate is necessary to stimulate such change for Black student representation in GT programs.

He emphasizes the importance of administrators, teachers, and parents being proactive instead of reactive to crises and the need for clear, comprehensible goals in order to address inequities.

Gallagher, J. J. (1991). Educational reform, values, and gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 35, 12-19.

Hertzog, N. B. (2003). Advocacy: “On the cutting edge…” Gifted Child Quarterly, 47, 66-81.

Gallagher discusses the current education reforms and how each might effect the education of gifted students. These reforms include the excellence movement, cooperative learning, the middle school, the master teacher, site-based management, and accountability. He suggests that educators of gifted students need to be proactive in informing educators and parents about how these reforms might be shaped for the benefit of all students.

This case study describes the context and processes involved in the passage of a Revised District Policy on Gifted and Talented Education and the issues raised by the event. Advocacy efforts in this case study were aimed at establishing appropriate instruction for gifted students in K-8 general education classrooms. Data sources included archival documents and both telephone and in-person interviews of key personnel and parents. The themes that emerged from the data analysis included personal dynamics, different perceptions, factors that both precipitate events and facilitate positive outcomes, barriers, power of information, advocacy tactics, unsuccessful methods, persuasive techniques, and events that were happening beyond the case. Factors identified contributing to advocacy success included commitment and tenacity of key individuals and the necessity of a system being in place so that change could occur. The issues raised by the advocacy event were of equity, quality, accountability, teacher training, and reform processes such as ad-

Grantham, T. C. (2003). Increasing Black student enrollment in gifted programs: An exploration of the Pulaski County special school district’s advocacy efforts.

Gifted Child Quarterly, 47, 46-65.

This embedded case study examines a local advocacy event in which one school district received a federal mandate to desegregate their gifted program in order to combat underrepresentation of Black students. The conceptual framework of a Gifted Program Advocacy Model (GPAM) was used to identify and explain

Winter 2006 • Temp o • Texas Association for the Gifted and Talented

33

Advocating for Gifted Education

Advocating for Gifted Education

vocacy parties’ compromising and school district compliance.

Irvine, D. J. (1991). Gifted education without a state mandate: The importance of vigorous advocacy. Gifted Child Quarterly, 35, 196-199.

Using New York as an example, Irvine discusses positive and negative factors influencing state mandates for gifted education. The use of vigorous advocacy groups, financial incentives, mandatory screening for giftedness, and educational reform are all factors that promote the development of programs for gifted students. Some negative factors associated with the lack of a mandate include inequities in access to programs, difficulties in assuring the quality of programs, and limited access to teacher preparation programs. The author concludes that although progress can be

34

made without a state mandate through the use of incentives, leadership, and advocacy, a mandate can more rapidly reduce the circumstances that are likely to deprive students of gifted and talented education and opportunities.

Karnes, F. A., & Riley, T. L. (1997).

Determining and analyzing public support for gifted education. Roeper Review, 19, 237-239.

This state survey was conducted by calling 400 households. The majority of those surveyed were female (67.5%), white (72.4%), and older than 35 (60%). The researchers found strong support for gifted education: 55% of the respondents said they knew a gifted child; 80% said that giftedness occurred across socioeconomic and racial groups; 76% agreed that they needed a different education; 89% agreed that gif ted students had equal educational rights; 82% supported e s t abl i sh i ng programs at the preschool le vel; a nd 74% agreed that teachers needed specialized training. In terms of economic benefits to the state, 74% of the respondents agreed that the future of the state depended upon providing gifted students with educational opportunities and 80% agreed that good educational pro-

grams for gifted students would attract businesses outside the state. However, 83% also believed that gifted students were more likely to leave the state upon completion of high school and college.

Kennedy, D. M. (2003). Custer, South Dakota: “Gifted’s” last stand. Gifted Child Quarterly, 47, 82-93.

This case study sought to identify and describe advocacy factors that were influential in enabling a rural school district to expand its gifted program in the face of diminished state support and local budget cuts. The school district contained about 1,000 students in grades K-12. Interviews were conducted with 17 participants involved with the Custer gifted program.

The sample included four full-time teachers, a volunteer mentor, five parents, the GT program coordinator, four administrators, one student, and one school board member. Informal interviews were also conducted within class settings of 5th grade and high school students. Data sources included the semi-structured interview transcripts, documents, and artifacts. The advocacy group, comprised of mostly parents, did not formally organize, but educated themselves to be effective proponents of gifted programs which saved the local gifted program, and even obtained increased funding. Advocacy efforts in this study included (a) searching for best placement options, (b) ongoing monitoring of school board meetings, (c) bringing controversial issues into the open, (d) using personalized yet effective communication with policymakers, and (e) reading and disseminating materials on gifted education and advocacy.

Larsen, M. D., Griffin, N. S., & Larsen, L. M. (1994). Public opinion regarding support for special programs for gifted children. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 17, 131-142.

This study examined the debate regarding the devotion of resources and development of services to gifted and

Winter 2006 • Temp o • Texas Association for the Gifted and Talented

talented students in the public school system. The purpose of this survey was to inform policy makers at local, state, and national levels about the opinions of the general American society. The Gallup Organization conducted a telephone survey of 1,000 adults: 844 were parents of school-aged children and 297 were parents of children identified as gifted and talented. Surveyors reported that the public supported gifted programs, especially when the quality of regular classroom education is not reduced. One-sixth of those surveyed supported allocating more funding for special programs for gifted students. However, in general, there was more support for “doing more” than “spending more,” with over 60% wanting the schools to do more for gifted and talented programs. The authors conclude that the results should encourage local and state legislation to differentiate more for all students.

Renzulli, J. S., & Reis, S. M. (1991). Building advocacy though program design, student productivity, and public relations.

Gifted Child Quarterly, 35, 182-187.

This article examines the process of building advocacy through the development and implementation of programs.

A case study is given as an example of an effective approach to advocate for appropriate gifted and talented services. The author defines an efficient program design as building advocacy through inclusion, extending services to a more diverse group of students, and extending technology to all members of the faculty, not just gifted teachers. Successful gifted programs also have the following key features: longevity, administrative support, gifted program leadership, policy adoption, program design and organization, school ownership of the program, prior evaluation reports, and sustained public relations efforts.

Ridges, J. (2000). Advocate role in developing district policy for gifted students.

Roeper Review, 22, 199-201.

A teacher describes how parents and educators formed a coalition to bring programs for gifted students to their school district. The coalition organized groups for students, coordinated parent volunteers, formed information sessions with college professors, lobbied the State Board of Education, and worked with the School Board in hiring a person who might coordinate the gifted program. After the state legislature allocated money for districts to use in developing gifted programs, the district developed magnet programs, honors classes, AP classes, and a schoolwide enrichment model in the elementary schools. Eventually the district adopted policies with assessment and evaluation as integral components. The program has been sustained for over 20 years.

Robinson, A., & Moon, S. M. (2003).

National study of local and state advocacy in gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 47, 8-25.

The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented summarized 61 examples of advocacy in 34 states. This article is a cross-case analysis of six of these sites that describes what advocacy efforts look like and what factors facilitate positive outcomes. Local and state advocacy can include (a) promoting short-term efforts at one campus, (b) securing more services for gifted children, (c) influencing legislation, (d) increasing funding, and/or (e) developing policies for gifted students.

Factors that facilitate positive advocacy outcomes include (a) persistence, (b) knowledge about best practices in gifted education and political processes at the local and state levels, (c) a preference for collaboration, and (d) practical problemsolving skills. Robinson and Moon report that advocacy is a continual process, crisis or not, and successful advocates know how to network. Second, advocates are willing to devote time for recognition of needs in hopes that more tangible goals will come to fruition at the right time. Third, small numbers of advocates or even committed individuals can be effective even at the

state level. Preparation is necessary for an opportunity to effectively communicate messages. Fifth, policymakers seem to prefer nonadverserial strategies by advocates.

Finally, successful advocates create clear intermediate goals such as recognition and establishment of advocacy groups to monitor and indicate progress toward the final goal of new, expanded, or improved services to gifted students.

Rosenstein, P., & Dettmer, P. (1991).

Advocacy for gifted programs: An interview with NAGC executive director Peter D. Rosenstein. Gifted Child Quarterly, 35, 179-181.

Executive Director of the National Association for Gifted Children, Mr. Peter Rosenstein, responded to Peggy Dettmer’s questions regarding advocacy efforts for programs for intellectually gifted and creative children. Advocates must be clear about facts vs. opinions about gifted education, major oppositions to gifted and talented programs, and how to initiate and continue activities. Rosenstein also answered questions regarding the role of lobbying in advocacy, how professional organizations can help advocacy efforts with legislators, and how the business community can be involved in future advocacy programs. While education is at the forefront of United States objectives, Rosenstein believes that gifted educators can have an impact.

Ross, P. O. (1991). Advocacy for gifted programs in the new educational climate.

Gifted Child Quarterly, 35, 173-176.

Ross expresses in this article that knowledge and access are keys in gifted and talented advocacy. She encouraged gifted educators to join district and state committees in order to obtain knowledge about current discussions and become active participants in efforts to transform services for gifted education. Some new initiatives, which might make a contribution to gifted education, include ungraded primary schools, assessment of student

Winter 2006 • Temp o • Texas Association for the Gifted and Talented

35

Advocating for Gifted Education

Advocating for Gifted Education

progress, student portfolios, and rigorous and revamped curricula. Ross believes that it is a vital duty of the gifted educator to be an integral part of task forces and committees that are involved in reform to shape and support school improvement for gifted students.

Schatz, E. (1991). Dissemination by design: A tool for advancing gifted education.

Gifted Child Quarterly, 35, 188-195.

The Wisconsin R ichardson Conference, comprised of eighty education, corporate, community, and government leaders, focused on strengthening a gifted and talented advocacy leadership force through ongoing collaboration and dissemination. Using the creative problem solving process, the initial conference identified problem statements in each of ten different areas. Four regional followup conferences were held to discuss goals and plan future regional conferences.

Each of the conferences adhered to these principles: create a critical mass, encourage a safe environment for exploration; and offer an open-ended task that would enhance movement toward the mission or end.

Shaklee, B. D., Padak, N. D., Barton, L. E., & Johnson, H. A. (1991). Educational partnerships: Gifted program advocacy in action. Gifted Child Quarterly, 35, 200-203.

These authors expressed the importance of forming educational partnerships for advocacy purposes to ensure that appropriate representation and services for gifted students are embedded within school reform frameworks. The article identified critical elements of successful partnership development and assesses the strengths and weaknesses of the example collaboration, Cooperation Alliance for Gifted Education, which was designed to enhance gifted and talented educational

36

opportunities in an urban setting. Themes that emerged in the development of successful partnerships included having a clearly defined focus, specific outcomes, and sustained and systematic communication. For educators and advocates who are interested in developing a similar partnership, the authors offer step-by-step instructions for creating a Joint Partnership Advisory Council.

Swassing, R. H., & Holcomb, P. A. (1992).

Ohio in brief: The commission on the future of gifted education. Roeper Review, 15, 41-42.

This article describes advocacy groups in Ohio. The advocacy group was initiated by the Ohio Department of Education’s Consultant for Gifted Education, the president of a local school board and the president of Ohio’s Association for Gifted Children. Eventually eleven different groups were involved in a state commission including the Board of Education, superintendents, senators, representatives, university faculty, parent and teachers associations, school boards, school psychologists, school administrators, school coordinators of gifted programs, and business leaders. The Commission was helpful not only in advocating for gifted students but also creating a better understanding among members about issues, identifying common goals and concerns, hearing other perspectives, and providing contacts for persons needing accurate information about gifted education.

and direction on behalf of gifted and talented students. A step-by-step process is included demonstrating the Utah Association for Gifted Children’s use of the creative problem-solving process in order to foster advocacy for the gifted and talented in formulating goals and missions. The authors conclude that the impact of this coordinated advocacy effort was immediately noticed through improvement in services for gifted children, better in-service training for educators, and more focused policy at the state level.

This example of creative collaboration strategies may be useful to other states in meeting their own advocacy affairs.

Treffinger, D. J. (1991). School reform and gifted education--opportunities and issues. Gifted Child Quarterly, 35, 6-11.

This is an excellent “how to” article for gifted and talented advocacy, with many lists, bulleted points, and diagrams which advocate for the inclusion of gifted and talented education in school reform. The author discussed implications of studies of excellence for gifted and regular education, and included a teacher checklist and self-study questions for excellence in a classroom climate. School reform and school improvement implications are listed and discussed as a “powerful platform of opportunity for gifted education” (p. 11).

Todd, S. M., & Larson, A. (1992). In what ways might statewide advocates for gifted and talented education coordinate and focus their efforts? Gifted Child Quarterly, 36, 160-164.

This article examined the state of Utah and its development of a statewide advocacy design that provided universal coordination, organization, focus,

Winter 2006 • Temp o • Texas Association for the Gifted and Talented

From the Editor Jennifer L. Jolly “Never doubt that a small group

ministrator establishing programming,

ers to effectively argue on behalf of

of thoughtful, committed citizens can

or as a student teaching others about

gifted children.

change the world; indeed, it’s the only

what goes in their gifted classroom.

thing that ever has.” Margaret Mead

On another note. . . At the last

As funding for gifted and talented

TAGT Editorial Board meeting, the

As the authors in this issue of

programs becomes scarce in our eco-

decision was made to move away from

Tempo have shown, advocacy can

nomic and political climate, it is more

themed issues of Tempo. Beginning

come from nearly any person who has

important than ever for those in gifted

with the summer 2006, issues will

a vested interest in the education of

education to draw upon their creativ-

no longer revolve around a particular

gifted and talented students. Those

ity, expertise, and resources to ensure

theme. This is an effort to encourage a

involved in gifted education whether

that gifted programming remains

broader range of people involved at all

as an administrator, teacher, parent,

available for our most academically

levels of gifted education to share their

or student all have a role in advocat-

able and talented students. School

research, classroom practices, and ef-

ing for appropriate curriculum and

board members, district administra-

forts on behalf of gifted education.

instructional opportunities for gifted

tors, and state and federal legislators

Please consult the manuscript sub-

learners. Perhaps, an article in this is-

are the gatekeepers of gifted educa-

mission section for format guidelines

sue of Tempo will inspire you as par-

tion. Gifted education advocates must

and deadlines on page 38 for further

ent establishing an advocacy group, a

also make certain that the gates remain

information on publishing in Tempo.

teacher planning curriculum, an ad-

open by accessing these decision mak-

Winter 2006 • Temp o • Texas Association for the Gifted and Talented

37

Advocating for Gifted Education

Guidelines for Article Submissions

Tempo welcomes manuscripts from educators, parents, and other advocates of gifted education. Tempo is a juried publication, and manuscripts are evaluated by members of the editorial board and/or other reviewers.

Please keep the following in mind when submitting manuscripts: 1. Manuscripts should be 5–12 pages on an upcoming topic.

2. References should follow the APA style as outlined in the fifth edition of the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association.

3. Submit two copies of your typed, 12 pt. font, double-spaced manuscript. Use a 1 ½" margin on all sides. One copy of the manuscript must be submitted electronically to the editor.

38

4.

5.

6.

In addition to a title page, a cover page must be attached that includes the author’s name, title, school and program affiliation, home and work address, email address, phone numbers, and fax number.

Place tables, figures, illustrations, and photographs on separate pages.

Illustrations must be in black ink on white paper. Photographs must be glossy prints, either black and white or color, or transparencies. Each should have a title.

Authors of accepted manuscripts must transfer copyright to Tempo, which holds copyright to all articles and reviews.

Upcoming Issues: Spring 2006 Service/Delivery Models for Gifted Services Deadline: March 20, 2006 Summer 2006 Deadline: June 20, 2006 Fall 2006 Deadline: September 20, 2006 Winter 2006-2007 Deadline: December 20, 2006 Jennifer L. Jolly, Ph.D., Tempo Editor TAGT 406 E. 11th St, Suite 310 Austin, TX 78701-2617 jennjolly26@hotmail.com

Winter 2006 • Temp o • Texas Association for the Gifted and Talented

Winter 2006 • Temp o • Texas Association for the Gifted and Talented

39

Texas Association for the Gifted and Talented 2006 Executive Board President

Raymond F. “Rick” Peters 2104 Shady Brook Dr. Bedford, TX 76021 817-283-3739 r.f.peters@ieee.org

President-Elect

I

First Vice President

Joanna Baleson

C. P. I. Inc. P. O. Box 792 Seabrook, TX 77586 281-474-7904 fax: 281-474-2545 juce@hal-pc.org

Secretary/Treasurer

III

Alexandra Schoenemann

XIII

Michelle Swain

IV

Dr. Laura Mackay

XIV

Dr. Cecelia Boswell

V

Ron Sims

XV

Debbie Lopez

VI

VII

Robert Thompson

1020 Timber View Dr. Bedford, TX 76021-3330 817-428-2269 rfthompson@sbcglobal.net

Immediate Past President Bobbie Wedgeworth

VIII

4003 Sand Terrace Katy, TX 77450 281-578-2710 swedgeworth@houston.rr.com

Executive Director Dianne Hughes

406 East 11th Street, Suite 310 Austin, TX 78701-2617 512-499-8248 fax: 512-499-8264 dhughes@txgifted.org

TX Academy of Math & Science P. O. Box 305309 UNT Denton, TX 76203-5309 940-565-3971 fax: 940-369-8796 Sinclair@unt.edu

Dr. Janis Fall

Patti Staples

Third Vice President

Dr. Richard Sinclair

XII

Second Vice President Paris ISD. 1920 Clarksville Street Paris, TX 75460 903-737-7543 pstaples@parisisd.net

XI

Kathyron Humes

Sheri Plybon

2205 Parkhaven Dr. Plano, TX 75075 972-968-4372 plybons@cfbisd.edu

Region I ESC 1900 West Schunior Edinburg, TX 78541 956-984-6237 fax: 956-984-6159 patty.rendon@esconett.org

II

Dr. Keith Yost

2670 Shady Acres Landing Houston, TX 77008 713-864-9544 kyost@sprynet.com

Patricia Rendon

Beeville ISD/A. C. Jones HS 1902 N. Adams Beeville, TX 78102 361-362-6000 fax 361-362-6012 khumes@beevilleisd.net Yoakum ISD P. O. Box 797 Yoakum, TX 77995 361-293-3001 fax: 361-293-6562 alexs@yoakumisd.net 2136 Lakewind Lane League City, TX 77573 281-332-2259 laura@texasmackays.org

Lumberton ISD 121 South Main Lumberton, TX 77657 409-923-7507 fax: 409-755-7848 rasims@lumberton.k12.tx.us

Linda Ward

Montgomery ISD/ Montgomery Inter.

School 1404 Woodhaven Dr. Montgomery, TX 77316 936-588-0509 lward@misd.org

Joe Stokes

Sabine ISD 2801 Chandler St. Kilgore, TX 75662 903-984-7347 fax: 903-984-6609 jamesjstokes@msn.com

Sandra Strom

Paris ISD/Paris HS 2400 Jefferson Rd Paris, TX 75460 903-737-7400 fax: 903-737-7515 sstrom@parisisd.net

IX

Missy Mayfield

X

Ann Studdard

Region IX ESC 301 Loop 11 Wichita Falls, TX 76306 940-322-6928 missy.mayfield@esc9.net

Acker Special Program Center - Frisco ISD 7159 Hickory Frisco, TX 75034 469-633-6839 fax: 469-633-6875 studdar@friscoisd.org

XVI

Killeen ISD 902 Rev. RA Abercrombie Dr. Killeen, TX 76543 254-501-2625 fax: 254-519-5579 jan.fall@killeenisd.org Round Rock ISD 1311 Round Rock Ave. Round Rock, TX 78681 512-464-5023 fax: 512-428-2980 Michelle_Swain@roundrockisd.org P. O. Box 316 De Leon, TX 76444 254-893-2628 kbc@cctc.net

Santa Rita Elem./San Angelo ISD 615 South Madison San Angelo, TX 76901-4461 325-859-3672 dlopez@saisd.org

Paula Coleman

Borger ISD 14 Adobe Creek Trail Borger, TX 79007 806-274-2014 paula.coleman@borgerisd.net

XVII Claire King

Lubbock ISD 7508 Albany Lubbock, TX 79424 806-766-2088 claireking@cox.net

XVIII Lynn Lynch

5510 Ashwood Midland, TX 79707 432-699-1519 lynchlynn@hotmail.com

XIX

Lynne DeLeon

XX

Jose Laguna

Socorro ISD 3344 Freeport El Paso, TX 79935 915-592-2630 deleon@sisd.net

7703 Rohrdanz Live Oak, TX 78233 210-637-5684 jlaguna@satx.rr.com

Texas Association for the Gifted and Talented 406 East 11th Street, Suite 310 Austin, Texas 78701-2617

Editorial Board Tempo Editor Dr. Jennifer L. Jolly

(512) 300-2220 ext. 202 TAGT 406 East 11th St., Suite 310 Austin, TX 78701-2617 jennjolly26@hotmail.com

Editorial Board Members

Karen Fitzgerald

(713) 365-4820 Spring Branch ISD 10670 Hammerly Houston, TX 77043 kmfitzgerald@academicplanet.com

Windswept Ranch, TWHBEA 13227 FM 362 Waller, TX 77484 tforeste@tomballisd.net

Tina Forester (936) 931-2182

Dr. Joyce E. Kyle Miller (972)613-7591

2600 Motley Drive Mesquite, Texas 75150 joyce_miller@tamu-commerce.edu

Dr. Gail Ryser

4906 Strass Dr. Austin, TX 78731 gryser@teachnet.edb.utexas.edu

Dr. Mary Seay

(830) 792-7266 Schreiner University 2100 Memorial Blvd.

Kerrville, TX 78028 mlseay@schreiner.edu

Terrie W. Turner

(806) 935-4031 Dumas ISD PO Box 715 Dumas, TX 79029 terrie.turner@mail.dumas-k12.net

Non Profit Org. U.S. Postage PAID Austin, Texas Permit No. 941