2006-2

TEMPO Spring 2006 • Volume XXVI, Issue 2

Texas Association

for the

Gifted

and

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

Gifted Program

Design

Texas Association for the Gifted and Talented

29th Annual Professional Development Conference for Educators and Parents

“Our Students, Our Future”

Austin Convention Center Austin, Texas November 15 - 18, 2006 x

Exciting keynote speakers Dr. Jim Delisle, Professor of Education at Kent State University in Ohio, and author of more than 200 articles and 11 books on gifted education Susan Winebrenner, a full-time consultant who works with school districts to help them translate current educational research into classroom practice, and has published three books

x

More than 300 sessions featuring many nationally-known presenters

x

Pre-Conference Institutes on important topical issues

x

Cutting-edge strategies, techniques, and research for challenging today’s gifted youth

x

More than 175 exhibitor booths featuring educational products and books For more information, please visit our website at www.txgifted.org or call (512) 499-8248

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

TEMPO

Spring 2006 • Volume XXVI, Issue II

TEMPO Editor

Dr. Jennifer L. Jolly

President

Raymond F. “Rick” Peters

President-Elect Dr. Keith Yost

5

From the President

6

Executive Director’s Update

9

From the Editor

10

Second Vice-President Patti Staples

12

Joanna Baleson

Robert Thompson

Immediate Past-President Bobby Wedgeworth

Executive Director

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.

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.

Surviving the Rural: Gifted Graham ISD Learning Without Limits

18

Serving the Gifted and Talented in Dallas ISD

Deborah George

Monica R. Brewer

20

The Challenge Lab: Beyond Mastery

22

University Programs for Texas Educators

26

What Does the Research Say About Program Service Delivery Models

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.

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

A Reflection: Shifting Tides in Carrollton-Farmers Branch ISD

14

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.

Jennifer L. Jolly

Bronwen Choate

Third Vice-President Secretary/Treasurer

Dianne Hughes

Gerry Charlebois

First Vice-President Sheri Plybon

Raymond F. “Rick” Peters

Cheryl Rich

Susan K. Johnsen & Alexandra Shiu

35

Call for Nominations

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

Contributing Authors

Gerry Charlebois, M.A., is the Director of Advanced Academic Services in Carrollton-Farmers Branch ISD. She holds a Bachelors of Arts degree from SUNY - State University of New York and a Masters of Arts from the University of Rochester. She received her gifted endorsement from SMU, reading certification and administrator’s certification from the University of North Texas. Prior to becoming the director of AAS, she taught for 25 years at the elementary and secondary levels. She is a state and national presenter of curriculum, gifted education, and brain based learning.

Cheryl Rich, B.S., is currently teaching in her 12th year in Kerrville ISD. She has been involved in the Challenge Lab from the very beginning as a member of the Academic Excellence Committee. She taught Kindergarten for 10 years before taking on the Lab program. She holds a Bachelor’s degree is in Speech Pathology from Abilene Christian University, and has her Early Childhood certificate as well.

Gifted Students: A Practical Guide; co-author 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).

Alexandra Shiu, M.S., has her 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 minority students from lower SES backgrounds, and social capital.

Bronwen Choate, B.A. is the vertical team leader in Graham ISD where she has worked for the past 32 years. In 2002, she was honored with the TAGT Region IX TAGT Teacher of the Year and in 2005 as the TAGT Region IX Advocate of the Year. She also is a gifted education consultant.

Monica R. Brewer, M.S., is the Secondary TAG Instructional Specialist for Advanced Academic Services in Dallas Independent School District. She has taught in Dallas ISD and Sherman ISD since 1993. She has served as the Talented and Gifted Seminar teacher for Pearl C. Anderson Middle School, which was recognized for having an exemplary TAG program.

In 2003 and 2004, her students received “Best of Show” for their Independent Study. She was a 2004 TAGT Conference Scholar.

She earned her B.S. in English & History and MS in Secondary & Higher Education from East Texas State University - Commerce, Texas.

Deborah George M.S. Ed., is the Director of Gifted and Talented Services, K-12 for Irving ISD. She holds a B.A. in Secondary Mathematics from the University of the Louisville and M.S.Ed. in Secondary Curriculum and Instruction from Central Missouri State University. Supplemental certifications include Gifted and Talented from Southern Methodist University and Principalship from University of Texas of Arlington. She is also an Educational Consultant working in districts to design effective and engaging instruction for students where her approach is known as unique and “out of the box”. Her most recent presentation was at NAGC 2006 and was entitled “Lesson Design with the End in Mind”. E-mail: dgeorge@irvingisd.net 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 Journal for Secondary Gifted Education. She is the author of Identifying

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

From the President

by RAYMOND F. “RICK” Peters The rewards for our society and our students can be great if we provide appropriate services in the public school classroom to our next generation of innovators. Addressing the needs of the diverse group that constitutes our population of gifted students in Texas public schools would seem an obvious outcome of a “Free and Appropriate Public Education”. In addition to the moral imperative to allow these children to develop and not “hold them back”, it would also enhance Texas’ innovation capital, create jobs, and stimulate our economy.

STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) initiatives are beginning to address the realization that our nation is at risk of losing its edge in innovation just as it has already lost its edge in manufacturing. As friends, parents, and educators of gifted children, we are aware of the connections between disciplines. The STEM education crisis is very real. In 2004, the United States graduated 70,000 engineers compared to 350,000 in India and 600,000 in China. In 2003, 59% of all engineering Ph.D.s in the U.S.A. were earned by foreign nationals. Candidates for our engineering schools do not suddenly appear on the steps of our universities. They must be allowed to develop in PreK-12 from all sectors of society.

The diversity of our population of gifted students should drive the type of service delivery most appropriate to develop their talent. This diversity is reflected not only in cultural and economic backgrounds, but in the degree and type of giftedness and the broad spectrum of children who are twice-exceptional.

Looking at history, we see many examples of twice-exceptional students who grew to make significant contributions. Thomas Edison is a well known example of such a student, although public school rejected his talent. His mother withdrew him from a public school where the schoolmaster considered him “addled” and then taught him at home. Texas should provide a free and appropriate education to each student in all public schools. How many young Edisons have slipped through because their needs were not addressed? Just think about the number of jobs that were created in our nation because of Edison’s many inventions documented by his 1,093 patents.

If service delivery is not appropriate, we might create “underachievement”. How many gifted students in a “one size fits all” environment easily coast through a public school that is focused on competency and not excellence, with grades from acceptable to exceptional and then find that they missed the developmental window in which they should have developed their work ethic? An appropriate education would have challenged them. Underachievement might also be a gifted student who is so mismatched with the services provided that they look for their intellectual stimulation solely outside of their school’s inappropriate curriculum. Students and their parents bear responsibility,

but schools are certainly responsible for providing an appropriate environment and services without roadblocks for gifted kids.

Don’t expect someone else to educate your legislator or your school trustee. Legislators and trustees want to hear from their constituents. Last year my city lost its public library for one month because of cutbacks caused by a tax rollback election.

Many of us worked hard to educate voters, but in the end our cause was lost by only 10 votes. Ten people who thought that their votes would not make a difference or five voters who fell for the last minute inaccurate statements of the “rollbackers” indeed made a difference. You as an educated individual can make a difference. You must provide accurate information with illustrative stories to our legislators so that they do not accept a plan during the special session or beyond that would hurt both our most able students as well as our ability to compete in the global economy. Since appropriate service delivery is directly affected by the Texas Legislature, we must communicate personally with our own legislators to illuminate the need for gifted services.

The use of real life stories to illustrate these needs can be very effective. The ability of these students to develop and therefore contribute to our society depends in large part on the long-term educational environment driven by state legislation. Advocacy at the school district level has become even more important with the disappearance of state accountability although state law requiring gifted services is still in place.

TAGT will keep you informed of critical legislative information if you are on their email list. Texas has a proud legacy in gifted education that should not only be protected, but improved so that we truly allow students in all sectors of society to experience a year’s growth for a year in public school. By doing so, we are investing in the economic future of Texas and the nation. If we do anything less, we are losing our best minds and the inventions and jobs that they could have created.

On another note, I recently attended the NAGC Affiliate Conference near Washington, D.C. As a sort of “State of TAGT” report to you, the membership, I would like to let you know that I was very impressed with the performance of our Executive Director. Dianne Hughes came to us as a highly credentialed, professional non-profit executive with significant experience as an executive director as well as a registered lobbyist. I would like to report to you that, after seeing her in action on Capital Hill, she “gets” gifted. She has caught the enlightened passion for these kids and I look forward to her contribution to the TAGT legacy already in place, as she and her staff implement the goals of the TAGT Board on behalf of the TAGT membership.

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

Executive Director’s Update

by Dianne Hughes Although the last issue of TEMPO was focused on Advocacy, we approach April in anticipation of a special legislative session called to resolve school funding issues. Additionally, Rick Peters and I have just returned from an NAGC meeting in Washington, DC where we made Congressional visits with both Texas Senate and four House offices. The Congressional visits dealt with the maintenance of Javits Grant funding, passage of the Higher Education Act, and the newer initiatives focused on science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) in education.

Many of you are familiar with the Javits Grant funds for gifted and talented education. Texas schools have been blessed as a recipient of these funds and are at risk of losing $4.6 million of Javits Grant commitments over the next three to five year period. While there is some controversy about the application of results from the Javits Grant projects to the broader gifted population in education, the fact remains that this is the only federal support available at this point for gifted education initiatives.

The Higher Education Act (S.1614 and H.R.609) addresses for the first time the need to provide tools for teachers to recognize and support educational needs of gifted and talented learners. Provisions in this act include: (a) teacher preparation programs, in partnership with schools of arts and sciences and high need districts, to use the funds to infuse undergraduate teacher coursework with units on the characteristics of high-ability learners; (b) the creation or expansion of new-teacher mentoring programs on the needs of gifted and talented students; and (c) encouragement to states to incorporate a focus on the learning needs of gifted and talented students into reforms of teacher preparation programs, reforms of state certification and licensure requirements, or new alternative teacher preparation programs. If this bill is not passed by the end of this session, it will have to be reintroduced.

In response to recommendations from a blue ribbon panel of business leaders, scientists, and educators convened by the National Academy of Sciences, two bills have been submitted focused on K-12 education to actively expand the pipeline of students who will choose science, technology, engineering or math related fields as their profession. These bills are S.2197 (PACE – Energy) and S.2198 and H.R.4434 (PACE – Education) and support the STEM initiative in education. For those of you who may remember Sputnik, there was similar federal concern and initiatives after the launch of the world’s first satellite from the Soviet Union.

The question posed to the above mentioned blue ribbon panel was: What are the top ten actions that federal policy makers could take to enhance the science and technology enterprise so that the United States can successfully compete, prosper and be secure in the global community of the 21st Century?

The complexity of preparing our nation to successfully compete, prosper, and be secure in the global community is the challenge of government. The complexity of preparing our young people to successfully compete, to fulfill their potential and, to that end, prosper, is the challenge of parents and educators. Educators and parents live this challenge on a daily basis in the concrete reality of competing human needs and resources within the educational system.

Although government also deals with the reality of competing needs, – it seems more abstract and impersonal. And, we may feel that as individual citizens our voice may not be heard amid those that are louder, or more affluent, more powerful, or more closed. However, I am renewed as an American every time I go to the Capitol in Austin or Washington or visit with elected officials. I am not renewed because I get what I seek, but rather, because there has been discourse - sometimes with consent and sometimes disagreement. I also am

renewed because there are young people actively learning a civics lesson in the halls of government and history as they visit with legislators on issues that impact their future. This is the practice of Democracy through citizen involvement.

These Capitol visits chasten me as well as they remind me of a privilege that I possess that is too seldom exercised because of excuses of time, partisanship or bureaucracy. While government may concern itself with security in a global community, I must, as a citizen, concern myself with preservation of the rights that have had so dear a cost placed on them.

The recent primary election illustrates the power in the privilege of the vote when a community acts to refocus the direction of its elected leadership. In at least two races, the electorate sent a message specific to education in Texas. Donna Howard, (D) District 48, Eanes ISD, will be filling a vacated seat in the Texas House of Representatives. Diane Patrick, Ph.D. will replace Kent Grusendorf as the Republican candidate for District 94, Arlington, in the General Election. Both selections are experienced community leaders with service on school boards at the local level and one on the State Board of Education. Each of these women articulated a message of change, vision for the future of our children, practical experience, and accessibility.

The issue of school finance reform will be politicked again by the same players as the previous four sessions. The Governor has put himself on the line with his bi-partisan school funding/tax commission and their proposals. As educators, we know that mastery produces advancement to the next level of developmental proficiency. It is my hope that the Legislature and its leadership will demonstrate a level of mastery after so much practice.

As we monitor this process, please take the opportunity to exercise your privilege of petition with calls, letters, or emails to legislators. Democracy is nurtured through the responsible exercise of its privileges.

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

From the Editor Jennifer L. Jolly In 1907, at the national meeting of the National Education Association, a special committee recommended that gifted students be grouped together in special classes with special curricula, with a special educational atmosphere, taught by a teacher gifted with “both personality and temperament” (Ericson, 1985). By the 1910s “opportunity classes” or special classes for gifted students began to appear in cities such as Los Angeles and Cincinnati (Davis & Rimm, 1994). The Cleveland Major Works Program and the Winnetka Plan were two examples of how school districts in the 1920s made more detailed provisions for gifted students. The Cleveland Major Works Program arranged classes primarily on the basis of intelligence scores of students who would participate in gifted classes on each grade level. The Winnetka Plan moved students through a common curriculum in mathematics and reading, working at their own individual rates.

Those students who mastered the curriculum more quickly were allowed to work on “selfexpressive” activities (Hildebrand, 1981).

Experimental or laboratory schools of the 1920s and 1930s represented the next major effort to educate gifted children. The best known school was the Speyer School, established

by Leta Hollingworth of Teachers College and New York City Public Schools. Not only would the school serve the educational needs of gifted students, but the children themselves also would serve as data collection subjects.

Hollingworth and her colleagues used this opportunity to learn more about this unique population of children. The Speyer School offered enrichment curriculum in abilitygrouped classes (Davis & Rimm, 1994; Delisle, 1999; Tannenbaum, 1983).

Despite the efforts made by various educators and school districts across the United States, educational provisions specifically for gifted students were scattered and sporadic.

The majority of programming focused on grouping, with few qualitative changes made to the curriculum (Ericson, 1985).

Nearly a century later, full day learning environments for gifted learners are almost unheard of with most districts preferring to

use cluster grouping or pull-out programs.

Unfortunately, as gifted education programs are being put back in the regular classroom, “teachers are now taking full responsibility for the education of gifted children along with those children who are age-appropriate, delayed, or disabled” (Shaklee, 1997, p. 214).

Research has found that even those teachers with training in differentiated instruction choose educational goals that are easy to implement rather than those that meet the needs of individual students (Olenchak, 2001). Further research suggests that differentiation does not take place even when teachers do receive appropriate training (Archambault, Westberg, Brown, Hallmark, Zhang, & Emmons, 1993). With so many demands being placed on classroom teachers, gifted students are often forced to fend for themselves. “However, many students labeled gifted do not make it on their own.

Inadequate curriculum. . . can extinguish the potential for high accomplishment of gifted children and adolescents” (Colangelo & Davis, 1997, p. 143).

Still, states like Texas have mandated programming for gifted students with curricular adjustments being made, allowing for a qualitatively different education. The majority of elementary gifted and talented programs are included in the regular classroom with the teacher expected to differentiate the curriculum. At the high school level most GT students are served through the Advanced Placement program. AP classes are open to all interested students with no special provision for GT learners.

From the articles included in this issue of Tempo, gifted and talented programs across the state of Texas are as diverse as the students they serve. These school districts have chosen to creatively find options in addition to regular classroom inclusion. Pull out programs, enrichment labs, book clubs, PreAP and AP classes, and independent study, are just some of the ways in which school districts have chosen to serve gifted and talented students.

The intention of every issue of Tempo is to inform those involved the in the education of gifted and talented students. If your school

district is seeking to initiate or redesign its gifted program, perhaps the examples in this issue will provide you direction.

References Archambault, F. X., Westberg, K. L., Brown, S., Hallmark, B., Zhang, W., & Emmons, C., (1993). Regular classroom practices with gifted students: Findings from the classroom practice survey. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 16, 103-119.

Colangelo, N., & Davis, G. A. (1997). Handbook of gifted education (2nd ed.). Boston: MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Davis, G. A., & Rimm, S. A. (1994), Education of the gifted and talented (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Delisle, J. R. (1999). A millennial hourglass: Gifted child education’s sands of time.

Gifted Child Today, 22(6), 26-32.

Ericson, S. C. (1985). Education of the gifted and talented in American public schools: A retrospective view. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Washington State University.

Hildenbrand, S. (1981). Democracy’s aristocrat: The gifted child in America, 19101960. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.

Olenchak, F. R. (2001). Lessons learned from gifted children about differentiation. The Teacher Educator, 36, 185-198.

Shaklee, B. D. (1997). Gifted-child education in the new millennium. The Educational Forum, 61, 212-219.

Tannenbaum, A. J. (2003). Gifted children: Psychological and educational perspectives.

New York: Macmillan.

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

A Reflection

Shifting Tides in Carrollton-Farmers Branch ISD By Gerry Charlebois

When I first started teaching in Carrollton-Farmers Branch in 1986 it was a typical suburban school district with an enrollment of nearly 14,000 students.

There were 14 elementary campuses, three middle schools, and two high schools. The district population was fewer than 19 percent minority, under one thousand LEP enrollment, and fewer than 20 percent low socio-economic status.

In the mid-80’s the elementary gifted and talented student in CFBISD was served through a pull-out program with a GT facilitator traveling between campuses. The gifted facilitator was only able to meet with identified students for 90 minutes a week.

Students were served through enrichment activities and programs such as Odyssey of the Mind, Future Problem Solving, and other enrichment experiences. The middle school and high school students had an Experience class with a humanities focus. The Leading Exceptional Academic Producers (LEAP) program had been in place for several years to meet the needs of the highly gifted child in a homogeneous grouped classroom housed at one elementary and middle school campus.

Twenty years later the district looks very different. The district currently has over 26,000 students and has doubled the number of schools with growth only expected to continue. Growth has also taken place in our GT programs. By using a variety of assessment tools, minority populations are proportionately represented in our GT programs. The Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test (NNAT) is given to every kindergarten student in the district. The Kingore Observation Inventory (KOI) is used in kindergarten through second grade. The use of portfolios has enabled us to identify students more accurately regardless of language or cultural background. These tools focus on identifying students’ non-verbal reasoning and problem-solving ability.

The LEAP program (Leading Exceptional Academic Producers) has grown to accommodate the highly gifted learner from kindergarten and continuing through the eighth grade. The program affords the exceptionally gifted child an opportunity

10

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

for challenge and growth at their cognitive level. The curriculum emphasizes academic rigor, creativity, self-motivation, and high productivity. LEAP students are often functioning significantly above their chronological age peers, so instruction is geared to challenge them and provide opportunities for application and transfer of learning.

In the regular classroom, the Academic Creative Education (ACE) student is cluster grouped at all elementary campuses to receive instruction in three formats: a) with other identified ACE students, b) individually, and c) with other students possessing a range of abilities. A Teacher of Record, who is certified with a minimum of 30 hours of GT training, serves them through curriculum designed to present learning experiences that add depth, complexity, and pacing commensurate with student abilities. The ACE curriculum is aligned to the TEKS and organized around interdisciplinary thematic units.

Teachers strive to differentiate the content and skills that are to be mastered to meet the students’ needs. Multiple resources such as, the William and Mary curriculum units, Junior Great Books, and McGeeKeiser materials, are available for teachers to implement. Exemplary district lessons are also online for all teachers to access.

The Summer Academy of Gifted Education is a summer program offered to ACE and LEAP identified students in first through eighth grades that provide the gifted students challenging experiences using interdisciplinary curriculum.

The program is intended to offer academic enrichment in an environment that supports problem-solving, creativity, and socialization skills.

At this time, one elementary campus has implemented the International Baccalaureate Organization (IBO) with the Primary Years Programme (PYP). The PYP provides an educational framework based upon how young children learn and draws on the best practices in elementary school instruction. The entire faculty has been trained to collaboratively plan thematic units of instruction and create lessons.

At the middle school an Interdisciplinary Seminar (IDS) is offered for all ACE and LEAP identified students. In the ACE/IDS class, instruction focuses on developing higher order thinking skills, problem-solving, interpretation of material, divergent thinking, independent study, and research skills. The language arts class is formatted with Anne Udall’s Model of Lesson Design.

Each grade level curriculum focuses on a theme and has generalizations and guiding questions to anchor learning.

To determine a more accurate placement into the middle school PreAP classes, PreAdvanced Placement Screening Criteria Evaluation was administered to every fifth grade student.This evaluation has been highly successful in increasing numbers and opportunities for the underrepresented student. Each middle school offers PreAP classes in the four content areas beginning in sixth grade and then continuing through high school. PreAP courses are academically rigorous and challenging.

All AP teachers and most PreAP teachers have attended the College Board AP Institute. The Carrollton-Farmers Branch PreAP teachers in English, math, and science are encouraged to participate in Laying the Foundation curriculum training through AP Strategies. This has been extremely well received by teachers. The Lighthouse Initiative is also used to provide teachers the guidance to access and clarify the relationship between the TEKS and the College Board AP objectives.

The ACE and LEAP students entering high school are served in Global Experience in the ninth grade and World Experience in the 10th grade. They receive their English and history credit in a double blocked class with an English and history teacher team teaching. This humanities class focuses on key ideas, themes, and principles within and across domains of knowledge.

At the high school, PreAP classes are offered along with over 25 AP courses.

CFBISD is aligned to the College Board’s philosophy of “equity and excellence” in that PreAP and AP courses are open to all motivated students wanting a rigorous academic program to help prepare them for college. With the partnership of AP strategies, CFBISD has been highly successful in preparing AP students for the Advanced Placement exams, especially in the sciences. Grant funding provided student tutorials, teacher training, incentives for students, and enabled a strong line of communication with the vertical teams through an AP lead teacher. AP students are offered Saturdays and evening tutoring sessions that focus on specific areas of need to help prepare them for the AP exams in science, English, and math. The AP lead teacher coordinates the tutorial sessions, leads the vertical team, and communicates with teachers in the district about training, resources, and materials.

Enrollment in AP courses continues to rise, but underserved populations still lag behind in student representation.

Parent awareness meetings, in English and Spanish, have been held at each high school campus this year. Students currently

in the AP classes shared their experiences and addressed questions posed by parents.

Basic questions such as, ‘Does my child need to be gifted in order to take an AP class?’, or ‘Is it better for my child to take a less rigorous class and receive a higher grade than take an AP class?’, and ‘Will a student who takes multiple AP classes be forced to not participate in extracurricular activities such as band or athletics?’ were asked. Each question was clarified with a resounding ‘No’. The purpose of these meetings is to better inform parents in order to advocate for their child’s current and future academic needs.

As well as the traditional classes for our CFBISD students, options are available that address the needs of the students who are seeking a different pathway to excel.

Performance Standards are offered at fourth, eighth, and Exit levels. The fourth and eighth graders are learning about the Performance Standards and terminology.

This allows them to be well informed of individualized services provided at the Exit Level in CFBISD. Gifted students have the opportunity to demonstrate skills in self-directed learning, research, and communication with the development of an innovative product. At the Exit Level, several students have constructed products of professional quality in conjunction with a mentor from the community.

This is an exciting time of change in education. CFBISD is proud of the strides it has made in curriculum and teacher training. The tide continues to ebb and flow for gifted education. Debates persist over funding levels, best practices, and identification of gifted students. CFBISD has remained committed to serving the gifted despite times of waning investment and capital in gifted education.

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

11

Serving the

Rural Gifted Graham ISD By Bronwen Choate Graham is a town of about 9,000 people located 60 miles from any great population center. Some people might see that as a hindrance to providing enrichment and extension for our students who are “the best and the brightest.” On the contrary we saw it as a challenge to initiate a quality program that would clearly serve our gifted population. Unlike many districts throughout the state, Graham ISD has decided to serve its gifted population by first determining what a graduate would look like who had participated in the program from kindergarten through the 12th grade.

Gifted and talented teachers on every level were brought together to brainstorm what each grade level could and should be expected to achieve. The program was then implemented from the top down with a culminating Performance Standards Project (PSP) in the 12th grade.

The Performance Standards Project was initiated by TEA as the assessment tool for Gifted Education as requested by the legislature. PSP was established in order to measure how successful the state has been in providing services to gifted students K-12. Rather than have the students take an another objective test like the SAT, ACT or TAKS, TEA decided an independent, research based product would be more suited to the learning styles of gifted students. Several school districts were asked to participate in a stringent pilot program that inlcuded product, process, and product components. This was begun at the Exit level and was slowly phased in at the fourth and eighth grade levels.

Participation at this time is voluntary.

12

However, TEA is currently developing tasks for all grade levels not covered under the current plan beginning with third grade. The goal of PSP is to give districts throughout the state a way to align and assess curricula for advanced learners.

With the help of our curriculum director and adequate funding from the Board of Trustees, we observed several programs in the Metroplex that had been recommended to us. Graham ISD’s gifted and talented program would eventually be a hybrid of programs observed.

First grade is the initial time for most students to be identified as gifted.

Currently the teacher is using the Flat Stanley project, which incorporates writing and geography. Students brainstorm what it would be like to be flat. They make a replica of Flat Stanley and send him to people they know across the nation, to Mexico, and even to Europe. Included is a questionnaire that people who receive Flat Stanley fill out and return. When all questionnaires are returned, the students discuss what they learned from the responses and plot the journeys of Flat Stanley.

Second and third grades participate in a scaled down PSP. They are researching the history of Graham in a project entitled “We Are Grahamites”. The second grade has guest speakers, visit the public library, and local museums. The students engage in group research that leads to a presentation of their products to an audience. This will help build skills and knowledge for their Performance Standards Project (PSP) presentations.

The fourth grade has incorporated the PSP into all four core areas. The fourth grade is departmentalized, so each teacher has taken a time period to explore the idea “Inventions”. The reading teachers began the process by showing the students the PSP requirements and giving each one a folder to organize the project. The students next learned about young inventors through video clips. Once each student had chosen an inventor, he or she created a three dimensional diorama about the inventor. Parents and the public visited with individual students about each inventor.

Building on this foundation, the science and social studies teachers teamed to explore the life and inventions of Benjamin Franklin. The G/T students read What’s the Big Idea, Ben Franklin? They also read the play, “Being Ben.” Each student was assigned a part and one of Franklin’s inventions to research and present. The presentation of the play was done at school and afterward the students research of Franklin’s inventions was displayed. The students are now required to submit their PSP proposals.

The math teachers discussed with the students about the actual building of the inventions, helping the students work out the intricacies of bringing the ideas to fruition. With the ideas on the table it was time to launch the project in earnest. The writing teachers help students put the finishing touches on their written work.

The fifth grade serves as a transition year helping the students prepare for junior high. Each six weeks students are provided Meaningful Teaching Units

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

(MTU). The MTUs are driven by science but are interdiscipliniary in nature. Each student chooses one project from a core area so that by the end of the year each student has covered all core areas. After receiving the MTUs, the students meet with their peers and share ideas about the upcoming projects. At the end of the six weeks students present their projects to the other G/T students and field questions from their peers. Eventually the projects will be displayed for the entire school.

During the year activities are provided to extend learning such as brown bag lunches with guest speakers and field trips.

Students participate in the PSP in fourth and eighth grade as well. As a result our junior high program extends the PSP project. Students in the sixth, seventh and eighth grades rotate among three classes, spending two six weeks in each. There are social studies activities including research of an incident reported from history using Claymation. Science covers the principles of flight and the students create model airplanes. Language Arts teaches media literacy using advertising and persuasive techniques culminating with the students’ creation of an advertising campaign. Each 12 weeks a presentation of the study is presented to parents and community members.

In addition the eighth graders participate in PSP. Some of their preparation takes place in Advisory Period and there are several full days devoted to research.

The students’ presentations are then filmed and the students’ work is shown to the public.

Graham High School serves its gifted students primarily through its Humanities program. At the freshman and sophomore level this consists of a Pre-AP World History class that is taught over a two-year period. The instruction covers history, as well as, literature, art, music and philosophy. Each six weeks the students are given the opportunity to participate in an individual and group project that extends the learning for that particular time period.

Depending upon the time period, students may choose projects that deal with nonhistory subjects such as math, science, technology, or engineering. At the conclusion of the projects students present their research, which may be through the use of technology, drama, or art. Presentations at this level are preparing them for their senior year PSP presentation.

In conjunction with the Pre-AP World History credit, the students are simultaneously receiving an elective English credit for Humanities. This allows the students to receive two full, weighted credits at the end of their sophomore year. In addition, most students opt to take Credit by Exam in World Geography. Thus, fulfilling the Graham ISD graduation requirement of four Social Studies credits.

Junior level students are enrolled in G/T AP English III. This course is taught much like the freshmen-sophomore course but with the emphasis on American Studies.

Every six weeks, students must engage in independent research and presentations.

A unique aspect of the junior year is the research trip. Each spring the students are taken on a journey to explore some aspect of Texas literature. Last year the group took a journey west. They experienced a legendary ranch, Lambshead. Then they journeyed on to Abilene and learned about a frontier town that blossomed into an urban center complete with a nationally recognized museum. The trip culminated with renowned author Elmer Kelton at Ft. Concho in San Angelo. The students learned about the craft of writing and the lore of the American West explored in his novels from Mr. Kelton. Upon returning to school, the student s began their individual research papers, based upon the information gathered from their trip.

Senior year is a two-part experience. We offer the class Advanced Studies. The first part of the year is spent in career testing and college options. Starting in October we ask the students to narrow down what career they

might choose so that they may have a job shadowing experience. Due to the wide variety of interests this year, students traveled to Dallas-Ft. Worth where there were greater opportunities. Job shadowing experiences included landscape architecture, orthopedic surgery, video production, and speech pathology. Shortly after returning from that trip the students chose their PSP project and the rest of the year is spent researching, producing, and presenting this project. A panel of professionals in the field serve as judges to provide an authentic assessment.

Thus, through a variety of programs Graham is providing gifted services to a rural population. Using the objectives for the Performance Standards Project each grade level works toward building skills that will help students develop their project at different grade levels. Though isolated from urban resources GISD students do not lack opportunities to achieve to their highest potential. What helps us succeed is dedication and hard work on the part of all teachers of the gifted.

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

13

Learning 14

Without

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

   

By Deborah George Gifted and Talented Services in Irving ISD were developed to motivate and encourage our brightest students to work at a level that will challenge them. Within each subject area, IISD provides GT students with experiences in which they may excel. The focus of Gifted and Talented services is to provide differentiated learning alternatives that promote intellectual and academic growth.

Gifted and talented children are a unique population, differing from their age peers in abilities, talents, interests, potential for accomplishment, and social and emotional needs. Irving ISD believes that cognitive skills, independent learning, creative thinking, acceleration, depth, complexity, and affective awareness are fundamental components of our services. These services are accomplished by integrating the fundamental components into the acceleration of the four academic areas: math, language arts, science, and social science within a variety of flexible grouping options.

Irving ISD gifted and talented services focus on providing opportunities for students to: • Recognize individual differences, strengths, and weaknesses in self and others, • Be producers as well as consumers of knowledge, • Participate in content based accelerated learning based on their readiness level, • Practice inquiry and divergent thinking, • Explore subject matter in a global context, • Take responsibility and develop responsibility, • Use technology in a variety of formats, • Develop leadership characteristics and participate in group interaction, • Solve problems in a real-world context, • Pursue passions through independent research, and • Become autonomous learners.

Identification of a Representative Population

Irving ISD has been successful in identifying a representative student population that reflects their diverse population including English Language Learners and underrepresented populations. Students are identified for Gifted and Talented Services through a three-stage process (nomination, screening and selection) established by the Irving ISD Board of Trustees. The identification process includes teacher, student, and parent input, nationally-normed achievement and aptitude tests, and product portfolios. Each phase is monitored by a team of educators at each campus. The GT campus team includes at least one administrator, counselor, and GT teacher. The team facilitates the process of nominating and identifying students.

One of the efforts Irving ISD has used to accomplish this goal is screening all kindergarten students. Kindergarten students are automatically nominated for Gifted and Talented Services. They are screened using high-level portfolio activities within the classroom during the fall. Kindergarten students are also administered a non-verbal reasoning test at the end of the first semester and those students needing additional criteria are tested using a nationally-normed achievement test. IISD is in the third year of this project and has found it to be very successful in identifying gifted and talented learners from diverse backgrounds.

Another policy that helps Irving ISD accomplish the goal for a representative population, is that in grades 1-12, nomination for gifted and talented services is ongoing.

These nominations can come from a variety of sources: parents, legal guardians, com-

16

munity members, peers, self, and teachers.

With district leadership, campuses create intentional action plans to educate the teachers on characteristics of gifted and talented students which helps to facilitate continual review of students’ needs for gifted and talented services.

Highly Qualified GT Teachers

Irving ISD believes teachers play a critical role in assisting students in maximizing their learning; therefore, professional development opportunities to improve the quality of educational practices for gifted and talented students are essential. The responsibility of the Irving ISD Gifted and Talented department is to provide professional development opportunities that: • Inform teachers of current knowledge, research, and methodologies in gifted and talented education, • Encourage interaction among individuals and collaboration among organizations to assist GT teachers with management and instructional planning through workshops and the use of Blackboard, • Provide teachers with a true understanding, strategies, and ideas for implementation of a differentiated curriculum to meet the intellectual and artistic needs of gifted and talented students, and • Promote awareness of the affective needs of gifted and talented students.

Irving ISD accomplishes this high commitment to quality professional development by offering a GT Summer Institute each year where assigned and interested teachers can complete the minimum state requirement of 30 clock hours, which integrate district goals and focus on the needs of gifted students.

Program Options Kindergarten

All kindergarten students are screened during the fall semester. Students that qualify for GT services begin receiving services on or before March 1st. During kindergarten, students are exposed to lessons that focus on higher-order thinking skills. These lessons are placed into each child’s portfolio for use during the program’s identification process.

Kindergarten students selected for GT services are introduced to activities through flexible grouping options.

Typically, kindergarten students are provided services either by a highly qualified GT kindergarten teacher who pulls together all the identified GT students together for selected higher level thinking activities or the students are provided the same activities by their current classroom teacher through

centers, stations, and/or independent study.

Each campus designs the grouping options that best meets the needs of their identified students.

First & Second Grades During first and second grade, students are clustered in groups of six to eight with highly-qualified educators who provide gifted and talented services within the regular classroom. Campuses typically have at least one monolingual GT teacher, as well as, a GT bilingual teacher for each grade level.

The students participate in lessons that promote higher-order thinking skills, creativity, and advanced content within language arts and mathematics. These activities consist of inquiry based instruction, deductive reasoning, divergent thinking, and/or tiered learning centers. Irving ISD believes that all students need appropriate and challenging opportunities to develop their individual talents and interests. Irving ISD educators meet the intellectual, social, and affective needs of GT students within the regular classroom through differentiated instruction.

Third, Fourth, and Fifth Grades Students identified for GT services are in self-contained contained classrooms beginning in the third grade. These GT teachers are required to complete 12-15 graduate hours of gifted education at local universities. This requirement also applies to our bilingual GT teachers where Irving ISD has made continual progress in growing and supporting bilingual GT teachers to meet the needs of our gifted English language learners. Teachers receive partial reimbursement for their tuition from the district. The self-contained classrooms provide accelerated content within the fourcore areas: mathematics, science, language arts, and social science.

Language Arts

Students are introduced to both the process skills of critical/analytical reading, foundation skills, and concepts of written and oral language. Students read from a variety of novels and participate in literature circles in order to make connections to themselves and the world by examining different themes, such as relationships, exploration, and change. Junior Great Books are used to supplement class novels throughout the year.

Grammar and writing are accelerated by one grade level in order to maintain a challenging curriculum.

Math

Students explore the mathematical spectrum by investigating mathematical concepts, applications, and problem-solving through the use of the Everyday Math curriculum.

The Everyday Math curriculum supports Irving ISD’s initiative to teach students how to be problem-solvers, and apply it to ev-

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

eryday situations. The curriculum provides a platform to teach a variety of approaches to problem-solving that integrates the social sciences into math.

Science

Students participate in scientific inquiry through the use of science kits. The foundation concepts of life, earth, and physical sciences are learned in conjunction with the process skills of the scientific method. Students work in flexible groups to investigate, record, and draw conclusions about scientific data related to real-world experiences.

Social Sciences

Students are provided an opportunity to examine their community, state, and country within a humanities framework. A variety of grade specific themes guide the discussions for depth and complexity. Language arts novels and the Everyday Math curriculum are integrated to supplement the topics and concepts of the social sciences.

Middle School Services in middle school (grades six, seven, and eight) continue to be facilitated

through endorsed GT teachers in a selfcontained environment. Since students are identified in the four-core subject area, they have the opportunity to take one or two year accelerated PreAP courses. Students identified for services choose from accelerated services in math, science, or language arts.

Since the students in need of gifted services in language arts are reading above grade level, they take humanities, a creative course that helps student focus on an in-depth study of the history through literature, music, art, and architecture.

High School Services in high school continue to be from endorsed GT teachers. Irving ISD further requires that GT teachers in high school complete their 12-15 hours of graduate work in gifted education.

Students are to be self-contained within the pre-AP courses of math, science, and language arts. Teachers focus on accelerated content while differentiating the process and products of the course through strategies that adjusts pacing as well as depth and complexity.

Juniors and seniors are also offered the opportunity to participate in Independent Study Mentorships (ISM). This course is patterned after the Texas Performance Standards for Gifted and Talented Students. Students may take this non-traditional learning experience to create innovative products and performance. Students in the ISM program will be involved in a long-term development of a question or idea that is significant to the student’s specified field of study. With the assistance of the ISM Teacher of Record, the student’s long-term project consists of a product, a process record or portfolio, and a presentation followed by a question-andanswer session. The students are matched with a mentor who will assist the student in developing their long-term project. Their presentation is judged by a panel of experts.

The final products and performances are assessed using TEA’s Performance Standards guidelines. Advanced measures are awarded by the district to those students performing at or above the State standards.

Program Options for Secondary GT Students in Irving ISD Subject Language Arts

6th grade English 6 GT

7th grade

8th grade

9th grade

10th grade

11th grade

12th grade

English 7 GT

Pre AP English I

Pre AP English II

AP Language and Composition

AP Literature and Composition

English V Genre Study

Independent Study/ Independent Study/ Mentorship GT Mentorship GT Humanities

Humanities 6 GT

Humanities 7 GT

Humanities 8 GT

Mathematics

Algebra Topics GT

Pre AP Algebra I

Pre AP Geometry

Pre AP Algebra II

Pre AP Pre Calculus

Math 6 GT

Algebra Topics GT

Pre AP Algebra I

Pre AP Geometry

Pre AP Algebra II

Science 6 GT

Science 7 GT

Pre AP Biology

Pre AP Chemistry

Pre AP Physics

Science

Irving ISD’s Gifted and Talented Services are an integral part of the district’s fundamental commitment to meet the individual needs of all students. The school district is dedicated to the development of each student’s talents and abilities. Within this context, gifted and talented services are intended to provide specialized in-

Humanities I GT

struction to meet the learning needs of gifted students. While students within the GT program are expected to master all learning objectives designated by state curriculum, the focus of the GT program is to provide differentiated learning alternatives that promote intellectual and academic growth. Overall, the gifted and

Humanities II GT

AP Calculus AP Calculus AP Statistics Pre AP Pre Calculus

AP Calculus AP Statistics

AP Biology AP Chemistry AP Physics AP Environmental Science

talented services for Irving ISD provide a learning environment, which fosters open-ended learning without ceilings.

The results are classroom services that reflect a qualitative differentiation of content, process, and product of the general education program.

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

17

Serving the

Gifted and Talented

in Dallas ISD

18

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

By Monica R. Brewer Dallas Independent School District has established Advanced Academics Services to provide gifted students with a continuum of educational experiences from kindergarten through twelfth grade in order to prepare all students to graduate with the knowledge and skills to become productive and responsible citizens. By ensuring compliance with all national, state, and district guidelines and mandates, Dallas Independent School District ensures that all students who participate in services designed for gifted students demonstrate skills in self-directed learning, thinking, research, and communication. They also will develop innovative products that are advanced in relation to students of similar age, experience, or environment which reflect individuality and creativity.

The program design options for Dallas Independent School District include Elementary Pull-In TAG Program, Graded TAG Content Program, Middle School TAG Elective, and Advanced Academic Courses for the Middle and High Schools.

Additional alternatives for the Talented and Gifted learners are TAG Vanguards, TAG Academies, and the TAG Magnet High School.

Elementary Pull-In TAG Program This academic program is designed to meet the needs of the students who have demonstrated complex thinking skills, and a need for academic challenge and rigor. Identified students should spend a minimum of two hours per week with up to a maximum of four hours per week in the TAG classroom. The TAG curriculum and instructional plan are designed to achieve the programs established outcomes.

Graded TAG Content Program Identified TAG students are assigned to TAG teachers (having completed their 30 clock hours in gifted and talented) for reading/language arts and math instruction. Students are heterogeneously grouped in the areas of social studies and science.

Middle School – TAG Elective In middle school, identified seventh and eighth grade TAG students may enroll in the TAG Seminar class as an elective.

However, sixth grade TAG is the only service option for the TAG student in the middle school. The elective course is

designed to meet the needs of the gifted student while providing opportunities for independent learning with rigor.

Seventh and eighth grade students may also be served by enrolling in the following classes in addition to or in place of the TAG Seminar: • Seventh grade – Pre-AP Language Arts and/or Pre-AP Math • Eighth grade – Pre-AP Language Arts and/or Algebra I Advanced Academic Courses Advanced Academic courses are college level courses, taught by high school teachers. Courses are designated as Pre-Advanced Placement (Pre-AP) and Advanced Placement (AP). The Pre-AP and AP teachers are required to undergo TAG training as well as the College Board AP training. Pre-AP courses are closely aligned with the curricula of the AP courses.

• Pre-Advanced Placement (Pre-AP) These courses are for students in the seventh and eighth grades and are not weighted. With very few exceptions, Pre-AP courses in high school are for students in grades nine through 11, depending on the content area/discipline. The purpose is to prepare students earlier in their academic careers for participation in AP coursework. The curriculum, mid-term, and end of course exams are differentiated from the standard course in order to prepare students for success in AP courses and for earning advanced measures toward completing the Distinguished Achievement Program.

• Advanced Placement (AP) Advanced Placement provides college-level course curricula for use in high schools. With very few exceptions, these courses are offered to college-bound students in grades 11-12, depending on the content area/ discipline. Students are provided with opportunities for curriculum compacting, college credit by exam, and if an AP exam score is a “3” or above, students earn an advanced measure toward completing the requirements of the Distinguished Achievement Program (DAP). Courses are available in language arts, math, science, foreign language, social studies, fine arts, and computer science.

Curriculum The Pre-AP and AP curriculums are

differentiated to include a wider range and greater depth of the subject matter covered in the regular class, while meeting the standards for gifted and talented students and College Board guidelines.

Provisions are made to include creative and productive thinking, stressing cognitive concepts and processes. In high school, identified TAG students should be enrolled in at least one subjectspecific Pre-Advanced Placement or Advanced Placement course.

Dallas Independent School District also offers alternatives for Talented and Gifted students. TAG students may also be served by applying to and being accepted by one of the TAG magnet schools. Any student in good standing who has the interest and ability to perform the academic and specialized work of the program is eligible to apply for admission to a TAG vanguard, academy, or magnet high school. These schools include K. B. Polk Center for the Academically Talented and Gifted (Grades 4-8), William B. Travis Academy for the Academically Talented and Gifted (Grades 4-8), Alex Spence Talented and Gifted Academy (Grades 6-8), and the magnet school, School for the Talented and Gifted, Yvonne A. Ewell Townview Center (Grades 9-12).

The focus of the Talented and Gifted program is to implement, maintain, and support a variety of instructional strategies that address the four core academic areas. In addition, the areas of art, leadership, and creativity are integrated within the academic program, providing part of the framework for moving toward the achievement of exemplary status under the Texas State Plan for the Education of Gifted/Talented Students.

References Dallas Independent School District.

(2005). Handbook for the education of talented and gifted students. Dallas, TX: Advanced Academics Department.

Texas Education Agency. Texas state plan for the education of gifted and talented students. (Revised May 2000). Austin, TX: Division of Advanced Academic Services.

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

19

The Challenge Lab:

Beyond Mastery

By Cheryl Rich The beautiful hill country of Texas provides the setting for the Challenge Lab. This new program enables students at each of the four elementary schools in the Kerrville Independent School District to go beyond mastery of basic skills. Students come to the lab to extend their learning, participate in independent study, or engage in challenging educational games after they have achieved an academic goal.

Designed to meet the needs of gifted and high ability students, the program also has some wonderful unexpected returns.

Superintendent, Dr. Dan Troxell, initiated the idea for the lab to improve the services provided to the gifted and high ability students in the district. The Academic Excellence Committee composed of teachers, administrators, community members, and parents was also formed to study the needs of the district.

During the course of research, several committee members traveled around the state to observe high quality gifted education practices. As a result of these visits, the concept of the Challenge Lab began to take shape. By raising the standard of performance through rigorous and challenging curriculum and instruction for all students, Dr. Troxell gave the charge of “no child left unchallenged.”

Each campus designated one classroom for the lab. The team made the decision to limit the focus of the activities to math and science for the first year. The school district and grants from the Kerrville Public School Foundation funded the TEKS based materials. Over the summer, the team met to plan and discuss scheduling, record keeping, procedures, and possible challenges. Identifying priorities resulted in setting a number of tasks for completion. The team wanted a common conference and planning time that would fit nicely into a weekly schedule when lab usage was minimal. Monday mornings were designated as a common conference and planning time.

During the first week of in-service, the four lab teachers presented a PowerPoint on their home campus and prepared a Challenge Lab folder for each teacher in order to gain teacher support and by-in for the Challenge Lab. Meetings with every grade level and many discussions with individual teachers took place. The grade level teams met to decide what criteria were appropriate for their students to qualify for time in the Challenge Lab. The lab team met together the first week of school to work on scope and sequence and alignment. During the second week, each class visited the lab for an orientation session to introduce the program.

The third week of school marked the opening of the Challenge Lab. Over the course of the first semester, each of the four schools used the labs in different ways in order to meet their own set of unique needs and priorities. One school used the lab more for special projects and extensions of their studies. The others focused on scheduled groups, research, or a combination of both. In December, a survey was given to both teachers and students. While positive comments dominated the results, some teachers did ask for more time. Scheduling continues to challenge all parties concerned.

After the first year of implementation, program evaluation led to the following changes: Adding the areas of language arts and social studies required the purchase of additional materials; formation of study groups created more time to serve identified gifted students; and a district curriculum initiative added continuity and shared experiences for students at each grade level.

The following are examples of projects that were particularly successful. The first grade study group topic titled It’s A Jungle Out There consisting of rainforest research and learning how to design web quests. The second grade participates in an Interact simulation titled Into the Unknown. This study involves research of the ocean as well as an introduction to

algebraic thinking. The third grade studies Animal Planet researching a biome.

All four lab teachers chose two biomes for their students to choose from so that the research would not be duplicated. The fourth grade studies and develops a mock trial using material from the Fairy Tales on Trial curriculum, Inquiring Minds Want to Know. The fifth grade used the Interact simulation of the Lewis and Clark expedition. A district-wide celebration took place in late April in order to showcase the Challenge Lab project and lab activities.

Advantages of having a Challenge Lab on each campus are numerous. The teachers have more confidence in the lab as a truly challenging place of learning, which substantially supports their efforts as well.

The teachers also have a resource available to them on their campus to differentiate and extend learning in their classroom.

Teachers have the ability to work with smaller student groups who need more intense instruction in essential skills and knowledge, and others who grasp concepts quickly can further explore topics outside of the classroom. The district provides consistent, high quality enrichment above and beyond the differentiation in the classrooms at each elementary school.

The lab also serves unidentified students who may need challenges. The students come because they want to and have worked for the opportunity.

Clear data is not yet available, but with the changes in attitudes, overall performance of elementary students is expected to rise. As one first grade student wrote: “I know it and I don’t have to pretend I don’t know it.” Meeting the needs of gifted students is not a simple task, but the Challenge Lab is a step in the right direction.

University Programs for Texas Educators From the gifted and talented programs profiled in this issue of Tempo, the importance of the teachers who implement such programs becomes apparent.

Universities throughout Texas offer both undergraduate and graduate programs in gifted education. These institutions help to ensure quality training for teachers, and that research continues in the field.

The following university profiles provide a sampling of the programs offered.

Baylor University Baylor University provides a certificate in gifted and talented education at all levels of study. At the undergraduate level, a student may add the supplementary certificate in gifted and talented education to their initial K-12 certificate by taking an additional 8 hours and completing field-based experiences with gifted students. At the graduate level, the student must complete 12 hours of course-work and demonstrate successful performance in classroom for the gifted or complete a practicum in their classroom or at Baylor’s University for Young People, a summer program for gifted and talented students. At the doctoral level, students may pursue research in topics of interest in the field of gifted education. Recent

22

doctoral dissertations have examined “The Effects of an Enrichment Program on the Academic and Social Performance of Students from Lower Income Backgrounds,” “Perceptions and Practices that Influence the Identification of Gifted Students from Low Socioeconomic Backgrounds,” “A Conceptual History of Gifted Education: 1910-1940,” and “Flow Through the Leisure Pursuits of Adult Science Fiction Fans.” Information about the Master of Science in Education and the Doctor of Philosophy are available on the Department of Educational Psychology’s Home Page. http://www.baylor.edu/soe/EDP Degrees offered: Ph.D., M.ED., B.A. Classes in Program B.A. Courses in Gifted Education: Introduction to Teaching Gifted and Talented Students, Differentiated Instruction, Exceptionalities, Practica at junior and senior levels with seminars related to core certificate areas and gifted and talented students Website: http://www.baylor.edu/soe/ EDP/index.php?id=14845

M. ED. Courses in Gifted Education: Introduction to the Gifted Child, Creativity and Strategies for Teaching the Gifted, Social/Emotional Needs of the Gifted, Curriculum Development for the Gifted, Practicum with Gifted Students; Courses may be taken for the certificate only or for a masters with the remaining courses taken in the Departments of Educational Psychology or Curriculum and Instruction based on student interests.

Website: http://www.baylor.edu/soe/ EDP/index.php?id=12046 Ph.D. Courses in Gifted Education: These include the masters’ courses and in-depth research in area of interest.

Website: http://www.baylor.edu/soe/ EDP/index.php?id=10804 Year started: 1990 for masters program; 1996 for PhD program; 2002 for BA Contact person: Susan K. Johnsen, Ph. D. Baylor University One Bear Place Box 97304 Waco, TX 76798 (254) 710-1011

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

Hardin-Simmons University Hardin-Simmons University offers graduate work in gifted education in the local Abilene area and in the Dallas/Ft. Worth Metroplex. Classes offered on nights and weekends are supported by online experiences. Teachers in Region XIV and in the Metroplex area receive a 65% reduced tuition rate, making our program affordable for most teachers. Students must pass the appropriate TExES exam and complete necessary coursework to be recommended for certification at the completion of the program.

Masters of Education in Gifted Education The graduate program in gifted education emphasizes research and practical application. Students build a deep understanding of the field through the study of experts and theorists, historical events, current law, and best practices.

In addition, they review and conduct research that supports appropriate educational experiences for gifted learners.

Through the design of workshops for parents or fellow teachers and participation in Threshold, our summer program for gifted learners, graduates refine their educational philosophy in real-world situations.

GT Supplemental Certification Educators explore the characteristics of gifted learners, appropriate identification methods, and effective curriculum and strategies for developing these students’ gifts and meeting their needs in varied settings. The GT Supplemental Certification along with quality graduate coursework qualifies teachers to help districts fulfill the Texas mandate for gifted educational services.

Classes in Program *GIED 5397 Introduction to the Advanced or Gifted Learner EDUC 6301 Introduction to Research Techniques READ 6305 Understanding & Working with Students of Diverse Cultures *GIED 6309 Teaching Gifted Students in the Regular Classroom GIED 6310 Assessment in Gifted Education *GIED 6311 Creativity GIED 6312 Child and Young Adult Literature

GIED 6313 Social/ Emotional Issues in Gifted Education *GIED 6314 Curriculum Development for Gifted *GIED 6315 Practicum in Gifted Literature 6 hours of Electives in Elementary or Secondary Education Total Hours 36 *Required for GT Supplemental Certification if student chooses not to pursue the entire masters program. Two years of successful teaching experience in a program for gifted and talented students can be substituted for GIED 6315 for students seeking only the GT Supplemental Certification.

NOTE: The student, in conjunction with his/her graduate advisor, develops a course of study, which fits the interests and career objectives of the student.

Year Started: 1989 Contact Person: Mary Christopher, Ph. D. Associate Professor, Educational Studies Hardin-Simmons University Box 16225 Abilene, Texas 79698 325-670-1510 mchris@hsutx.edu http://w w w.hsut x .e du/ac ademic s/ graduate/programs/education/

Southern Methodist University Southern Methodist University offers four courses (12 graduate credits) that prepare teachers for the gifted education certification exam. These four courses in their ideal sequence are EDU 6325 (Nature and Needs), EDU 6397 (Growth and Development, Social and Emotional) or EDU 6347 (Creativity), and EDU 6388 (Curriculum). It is possible to begin with EDU 6397 or 6347. In no case, however, should an inexperienced teacher attempt 6388 without background course work.

Classes in Program EDU 6325 – Educating The Gifted And Talented This course includes a historical survey of the field, definitions, basic terminology, theories, models, and char-

acteristics of the gifted and talented.

A brief summary of identification and assessment procedures, characteristics desirable in counselors/teachers, models for interaction with gifted persons, and a review of effective program prototypes are also provided.

EDU 6397 – Growth And Development Of The Gifted This course examines the differentiated affective characteristics and needs of the gifted and includes a review of general counseling theories, effective communication skills with the gifted, the assessment of affective needs, strategies for assisting the gifted in developing social and interpersonal skills, and issues surrounding the potential of the gifted to achieve and make significant contributions to society as a whole.

EDU 6347– Creativity: Theories, Models, And Applications This course surveys the concept of creativity. Topics covered include instruments and techniques for identifying creativity, theories and models of creativity, techniques for creativity enhancement, futuristics, and challenges unique to creative persons.

EDU 6388 – Curriculum Development For Gifted And Talented Learners This course provides the foundation for the development of differentiated curricula for gifted students.

Significant curriculum models are reviewed and/or introduced. Other topics include effective teaching strategies for gifted students, adapting curriculum for individual differences, the organization of curriculum for the gifted (scope and sequence; the issues related to integrated, interdisciplinary curriculum), and the teaching of higher level cognitive skills.

EDU 6374 – Practicum Either a practicum experience or two years of successful classroom teaching experience in an approved program for gifted and talented students is required for endorsement. Students in this course will meet regularly with a faculty member to develop and enhance skills in teaching the gifted.

Year Started: 1994

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

23

Contact Person: Marilyn Swanson (mswanson@smu.edu) for 12 hours only; Josie Acosta (jvacosta@ smu.edu) for M.Ed. information.

Sul Ross State University At Sul Ross students may pursue a Master of Education in Education-General degree with specialization in Gifted and Talented. The Master’s degree program is a 36 semester credit hour program that includes the following course work.

For GT certification, see the additional requirements. Classes are offered in a convenient weekend format. During Spring and Fall semesters classes meet on four designated weekends (Saturday and Sunday). For Summer sessions the format is slightly modified, classes meet on designated days (i.e., Monday and Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, or Saturday and Sunday) for four consecutive weeks in June or July. Students may enroll in a maximum of nine semester credit hours during each Fall and Spring term, and a maximum of six semester credit hours in each of the two annual summer sessions.

Students may join the program at the beginning of any term.

Classes in Program M.Ed. with Gifted and Talented Course work: ED 5305 Technology in the Educational Setting ED 5306 Assessment of Individual Intelligence ED 5307 Graduate Research ED 5316 Teaching the Multicultural Learner ED 5324 Advanced Educational Psychology ED 5350 Nature of Gifted and Talented Students ED 5351 Curriculum for Gifted and Talented ED 5352 Social/Emotional Development of G/T ED 5353 Program Planning for Gifted and Talented Students ED 6308 Advanced Human Growth and Development 6 electives* (approved by advisor)

24

Certification in G/T also requires Field Experience: *ED 7319 Practicum in Gifted and Talented or two years of verified successful teaching in an approved T.E.A. gifted/talented program For those who hold a master’s degree in education and wish to pursue GT certification only the following applies: Gifted and Talented certification at Sul Ross State University is a supplemental certification program offered at the graduate level. Students must hold a valid Texas Teacher Certificate prior to obtaining Gifted and Talented (GT) certification.

Supplemental certification level will correspond to the holder’s initial classroom certification level i.e., elementary (EC-4), middle school (grades 4-8), secondary (grades 8-12). GT certification consists of 24 semester credit hours with a Practicum or two years of full-time teaching experience in an approved TEA gifted/talented program.

Required 24 GT Courses: ED 5305 Technology in the Educational Setting ED 5306 Assessment of Individual Intelligence ED 5324 Advanced Educational Psychology ED 5350 Nature of Gifted and Talented Students ED 5351 Curriculum for Gifted and Talented ED 5352 Social/Emotional Development of G/T ED 5353 Program Planning for Gifted and Talented Students ED 6308 Advanced Human Growth and Development Required Field Experience: ED 7319 Practicum in Gifted and Talented or two years of verified successful teaching in an approved T.E.A. gifted/talented program Check the Sul Ross State University web site for current class schedules and for courses that are offered as Internet Web Classes or Distance Education Classes.

Contact Person: Dr. Linda N. Lucksinger, Box C-115, Education Department, Sul

Ross State University, Alpine, TX 79832 Telephone: (432) 837-8213 Email: llucksin@sulross.edu http://www.sulross.edu

Texas A & M UniversityCommerce The gifted education program at Texas A & M University-Commerce includes graduate coursework for students pursuing Masters and Doctoral degrees.

Students may count the twelve hours in gifted education as an emphasis area on a Master’s or Doctoral degree plan.

In addition, the University hosts each semester the Middle School and High School Students Seminar. Professional development opportunities are available for teachers and college credit is given for high school students who have completed Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate programs.

Distance Education graduate coursework is offered online, by interactive and faceto-face formats.

Degrees Offered Master’s and Doctoral Degrees with an emphasis in gifted education Classes in Program SHED 506 Nature and Needs of the Gifted SHED 507 Teaching Strategies and Gifted and Talented SHED 508 Curriculum Development for the Gifted Student SHED 509 Seminar: Trends and Issues in Gifted Education All of these courses are now offered online and by Distance Education Year Started: We started teaching courses in gifted education in the late 1970’s as a SHED 529 Workshop. The first graduate course appeared in the 1982-1983 catalog.

Contact Person/Information Dr. Joyce E. Kyle Miller Texas A & M University-Commerce 2600 Motley Drive Mesquite, Texas 75150 972-882-7527 Joyce_miller@tamu-commerce.edu

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

University of North Texas Since 1988, the University of North Texas has maintained the largest certification program in Texas and the foremost online gifted training anywhere.

University of North Texas offers a comprehensive series of online coursework leading to gifted certification and masters or doctoral degrees.

Coursework for the TExES Certification in Gifted Education is 100% online, allowing students across the state, or even the nation, to enroll. Students learn through multimedia-based lectures, online discussions over GT education topics, and practical projects that students are able to use immediately.

Course offerings in the masters and doctoral programs feature online and/or on-campus learning opportunities with continual student-faculty interactions.

Research emphasis for the faculty are on empirical investigation related to gifted education and gifted and talented individuals especially the highly gifted, early entrance to college, life-satisfaction of the gifted, social and emotional aspects of giftedness, and assessment and evaluation of gifted students and programs.

For more information about advanced training in the gifted and their education at the University of North Texas, visit our website at www.coe.unt.edu/gifted .

• •

an emphasis on gifted education Ph.D. in Special Education with an emphasis on gifted education Ph.D. in Curriculum & Instruction with an emphasis on gifted education

Classes in Program: TExES and UNT Certifications in Gifted Education • EDSP 5105 Nature and Needs of the Gifted and Talented • EDSP 5110 Social and Emotional Components of Giftedness • EDSP 5120 Program Planning for the Education of the Gifted and Talented • EDSP 5130 Method and Curriculum for Teaching Gifted and Talented Students

All courses for certification may also apply towards hours in the masters or doctoral degrees. Course work requirements for masters or doctoral degrees vary by major. For specific coursework requirements, visit our website at http://www. coe.unt.edu/gifted/ under the Academics link.

Year Started: 1988 Contact Person: Michael F. Sayler, Ph.D. Director, Office of Gifted Education University of North Texas College of Education 940/565-4699 gifted@coe.unt.edu

Certifications offered: • TExES Certification in Gifted Education (requires passing TExES exam; 100% online courses) • University of North Texas Graduate Academic Certificate in Gifted Education (100% online – certificate appears on UNT transcript, but is not state certification. Students can earn both Texas and UNT certification by taking the same four courses) Degrees Offered: • M.S. in Educational Psychology with an emphasis on gifted education (100% 0nline) • M.S. Ed in Special Education with an emphasis on gifted education • M.S. Ed in Curriculum & Instruction with an emphasis on gifted education • Ph.D. in Educational Research with

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

25

What D oes the Resear ch

Say About Program Service s l e d o M Delivery by

Susan K. Johnsen & Alexandra Shiu

26

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

Delivery models are ways that school administrators organize programs to serve gifted students and meet state guidelines.

These program service delivery models take a variety of forms such as cluster grouping, resource rooms, magnet or special schools, self-contained classes, university-based programs, and distance learning.

In this summary of research, we reviewed articles examining these service delivery models that were published between 1996-2006 in Gifted Child Quarterly, Gifted Education International, Journal for the Education of the Gifted, The Journal of Secondary Gifted Education and Roeper Review. To be included, the article needed to identify the effects of the administrative model on gifted students. Articles that were primarily descriptive, contained international samples, addressed curriculum models, or extracurricular activities were not included. These selection criteria identified 22 articles. Of these, one was ethnographic and phenomenological (Coleman, 2001), three were case studies (Hébert & Neumeister, 2000; Hébert & Olenchak, 2000; Moon, Swift, & Shallenberger, 2002), seven used pre/post assessments (Gentry & Owen, 1999; Hunt, 1996/1997; Hsu, 2003; Landrum, 2001; Melber, 2003; Newman, 2005: Uresti, Goertz, & Bernal, 2002), and the rest were descriptive (e.g. used surveys, interviews, and/or other data collection procedures with no treatment).

The program service delivery models were quite varied and included separate schools for the gifted (Borland, Schnur, & Wright, 2000; Coleman, 2001), selfcontained classrooms (Moon, Swift, & Shallenberger, 2002), bussing to a separate location (Gentry & Ferriss, 1999), homogeneous versuses heterogeneous grouping arrangements (Hunt, 1996/1997), cluster grouping (Gentry & Owen, 1999; Landrum, 2001), general education classrooms (Davalos & Griffin, 1999; Uresti, Goertz, & Bernal, 2002), inclusionary Advanced Placement courses (Awaya, 2001), Type III school enrichment (Newman, 2005), mentorships (Davalos & Haensly, 1997; Hébert & Neumeister, 2000; Hébert & Olenchak, 2000), summer courses (Hsu, 2003; Lee & Olszewski-Kubilius, 2005), distance learning courses (Olszewski-Kubilius & Lee, 2004; Wilson, Litle, Coleman, & Gallagher, 1997/1998), after school support (OlszewskiKubilius, Lee, Ngoi, & Ngoi, 2004), and collaborations with museums (Melber, 2003).

All of the articles concentrated on the program’s effects on gifted students, but at different levels: elementary (n=8; 36%)(Borland, Schnur, & Wright; Davalos

& Griffin; Gentry & Owens; Hébert & Neumeister; Landrum; Melber; Moon, Swift, & Shallenberger; Uresti, Goertz, & Bernal), elementary and middle school (n=4; 18%)(Gentry & Ferriss; Hunt; Newman; Olszewski-Kubilius, Lee, Ngoi, & Ngoi), middle and high school (n=2; 9%) (Awaya; Olszewski-Kubilius & Lee); high school (n=6; 27%)(Coleman; Davalos & Haensly; Hébert & Olenchak; Hsu; Lee & Olszewski-Kubilius; Wilson, Litle, Coleman, & Gallagher); and all levels (n=2; 9%)(Hertzog; Shore & Delcourt).

In the majority of the studies, the reported effects on gifted students were positive. Increased achievement was noted for homogeneously grouped students across program service delivery models (Borland, Schnur & Wright; Davalos & Haensly; Gentry & Owen; Hébert & Olenchak; Hunt; Hsu; Landrum; Lee & Olszewski-Kubilius; Melber; Olszewski-Kubilius & Lee; Shore & Delcourt; Uresti, Goertz, & Bernal). In one comparison study, homogeneously grouped gifted students outperformed those who were heterogeneously grouped in math (Hunt). This result is similar to previous reviews in the research literature where gifted students outperformed their counterparts when placed in full-time gifted programs, pull-out programs, cluster groups, or crossgrade groups (Kulik & Kulik, 1982; Kulik & Kulik, 1997; Rogers, 1993; Slavin, 1987). The critical characteristic of the service delivery model was the match between the curriculum and the student.

Specific achievements were noted for particular models. For example, with mentorships, gifted students reversed underachievement patterns (Hébert & Olenchak), completed more independent products (Gentry & Ferriss), and identified future careers (Davalos & Haensly).

Summer university-based and distance learning courses allowed gifted students to complete classes successfully in shorter periods of time (Hsu), to earn school credits for AP classes (Lee & Olszewski-Kubilius; Olszewski-Kubilius & Lee), and to take courses that were not previously available to them in their home schools (Wilson, Litle, Coleman, & Gallagher). Some of the achievements were augmented with the use of other models. Newman (2005) reported that more and better quality Type III products were completed when teachers integrated Talents Unlimited. Museum collaborations with an elementary gifted program not only enhanced the gifted students’ content knowledge but also increased their interest in science and reduced their stereotypes of scientists (Melber).

Social benefits of homogeneous groups were also reported (Wilson, Litle, Coleman, & Gallagher). Coleman (2001) found that gifted students in a public residential high school created a social system that valued diversity and advanced learning, which was different from their home high schools. Relationships were enhanced in mentorships with gifted students improving their personal views of themselves and developing communication skills (Davalos & Haensly; Hébert & Neumeister; Hébert & Olenchak). On the other hand, some gifted students missed their friends in the general education classroom (Moon, Swift, & Shallenberger) and expressed frustrations about belonging to a “gifted group,” citing an overwhelming sense of being different (Hertzog).

Only four of the articles examined the effects of different service delivery models on minority students. Two of these focused on serving “potentially” gifted students and developing their talents while the other two examined the effects of gifted programming on all students in more inclusive settings. Borland, Shnur, and Wright (2000) found that placing five “potentially” gifted economically disadvantaged minority kindergarten students in a school for the gifted was beneficial.

The students made better progress than could have been expected and were integrated socially. Olszewski-Kubilius, Lee, Ngoi, and Ngoi (2004) reported a 300% increase in the percentage of minority children qualifying for an advanced math program by providing individualized support, after school enrichment activities, peer and parents support components in a collaborative program between a university and local school districts. Again, these students were “potentially” gifted and performed in the above average range on intelligence and achievement tests.

Awaya (2001) described an inclusionary program at the middle and high school levels in which more Hawaiian students participated. Even though no students were screened for the GT program, success rates were similar between previously identified gifted and nonidentified gifted with Advanced Placement pass rates at 70%. Similarly, Uresti, Goertz, and Bernal (2002) integrated the Autonomous Learner Model in an inclusive classroom comprised of low socioeconomic first grade Hispanic students. While achievement test scores rose in this one group pre/post design, the authors emphasized the improvement in the learning atmosphere in the class.

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

27

In addition to Uresti, Goertz, and Bernal’s study in a general education classroom, Davalos and Griffin (1999) investigated this delivery model and its effect on gifted students in rural, heterogeneous classrooms. They reported that gifted students might be served in a classroom with students of varying abilities if the classroom teacher (a) is highly motivated to use individualization as an instructional technique, (b) is willing to give control over learning to the students themselves, (c) understands the academic, social, and emotional needs of gifted learners and is prepared to support those needs, (d) receives sufficient training in individualization techniques to implement them, and (e) develops a shared language of learning among students and instructors.

Finally, in their review of service delivery models that are uniquely appropriate to gifted students, Shore and Delcourt (1996) found that students in pull-out, separate class, and special school programs outperformed their gifted peers who were in within-class arrangements and schools without gifted programs. They concluded, “Gifted students’ learning is directly related to the extent that differentiation they experienced” (p. 142).

Awaya, A. (2001). Equitable access to excellence: Opportunities for gifted education to an underrepresented population through open enrollment. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 25, 177-197.

The author describes the effect of abolishing screening for GT programs on a school located in Hawaii serving students in grades seven through 12. The rationale for the shift to open enrollment was the inconsistency of the students’ previous elementary programs and a new view of the program as one of providing opportunity.

The author describes how the program compared well to the Richardson Study’s criteria for a “substantial gifted program” (p. 183). The program offered Advanced Placement courses in all the core areas.

All students who enter the program stay for the year. AP exam pass rates are about 70% for English and social studies exams and somewhat less for calculus and biology. A coordinator and an executive board oversee the program. The budget is supplemented with school funding and the GT handbook articulates the philosophy, program, and policies. In addition, more Hawaiian and part-Hawaiian students participation increased by 10 percent. The

28

author also found that students who had had no elementary school experience with gifted services were dismissed or were dropping out of the program at the same rate as those who had previous experience, while success rates were similar. The author concludes that gifted education can serve a wider population.

Borland, J. H., Schnur, R., & Wright, L. (2000). Economically disadvantaged students in a school for the academically gifted: A postpositivist inquiry into individual and family adjustment. Gifted Child Quarterly, 44, 13-32.

This follow-up study reports the effects of the placement in a school for gifted students of five economically disadvantaged minority students from central Harlem who were identified in kindergarten as potentially academically gifted. Initial screening consisted of qualitative assessment (observations, teacher and parent referrals, draw-a-person tests, and curriculum-based assessment activities) and quantitative assessment (Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test, the Test of Early Mathematical Ability, and the Test of Early Reading Ability). A research team collected second grade follow up data from classroom observations, student focus groups, sociograms, the Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement, the Stanford Binet IV, the Children’s Personality Questionnaire, the Pictorial Scale of Perceived Competence and Social Acceptance for Young Children, the Nowicki-Strickland Locus of Control Scale for Children, and interviews with students, parents, and teachers. The authors concluded that the students made better academic progress than could have been expected, were integrated socially, and appeared to be experiencing no adverse emotional reaction. The authors believe that their success was dependent upon students, families, and school setting. They also assert that the identification of economically disadvantaged students as potentially gifted is valid. They suggest that “real damage [is] done to bright children who depend on publicly funded education where there is no response to their special needs” (p. 31).

Coleman, L. J. (2001). A “rag quilt”: Social relationships among students in a special high school. Gifted Child Quarterly, 45, 164-173.

This ethnographic and phenomenological study examined the experience of

being a gifted student at a public residential high school. The students at this school created a social system that was different from their home high schools. This high school valued diversity and advanced learning where cliques do not form, boundaries among groups are permeable, movement is fluid, and academic accomplishment is valued (p. 172). The author concluded that the students, their families, and the program influence the creation of the social system.

Davalos, R., & Griffin, G. (1999). The impact of teachers’ individualized practices on gifted students in rural, heterogeneous classrooms. Roeper Review, 21, 308-314.

In this study, the researchers spent more than 150 hours observing teachers while they were being trained to individualize instruction in the areas of content, rate, preference, and environment. They then made weekly visits to the classrooms in which these teachers taught for over a period of a year and a half, observing for approximately 200 hours to determine the extent to which the teachers met their goals for individualization and the effects on the students. The results of their study indicated that gifted students might be served in a classroom of students with varying abilities without special grouping in a resource setting if (a) the classroom teacher understands personally the benefits of an individualized education and is highly motivated to use individualization as an instructional technique, (b) the classroom teacher is willing to give control over learning to the students themselves, (c) the teacher understands academic, social, and emotional needs of gifted learners and is prepared to support those needs, (d) the classroom teacher receives proper training in individualization techniques in order to acquire skills necessary for implementation, and (e) the regular classroom teacher facilitates the development of a shared language of learning among students and instructors.

Davalos, R., & Haensly, P. (1997). After the dust has settled: Youth reflect on their high school mentored research experience. Roeper Review, 19, 204-207.

Based on data from his 22-year longitudinal study of 200 creative children, Terman (1984) concluded that every successful person has a mentor who may have changed the course of his or her life.

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

This study focused on the effects of a high school student independent study/mentorship class. In this course, students were able to explore an area of special interest, usually related to a potential career, through a yearlong investigation of a research topic.

The research was guided by a community volunteer mentor with expertise in that particular field and a teacher for the gifted and talented. The class was arranged as a two-hour block so that students could leave campus to meet with mentors. They also attended class as a group with their GT instructors. Each spring the high school students prepared presentations to report the results of their research to audiences with common interests. The mentor, the GT teacher, and the students formally evaluated student presentations.

To determine the long-term benefits of the program, a questionnaire was mailed to 354 former GT students who participated in the Independent Study/Mentorship Program at six high schools during the years 1989-1994.

Ninety students responded. While the sample was biased, students most often agreed or strongly agreed with the survey items.

The students reported that the mentorship program was memorable (84% agreed or strongly agreed); affected extracurricular activities and accomplishments (64%); con-

tributed to overall academic achievements (73%); helped them select a particular vocation or career (74%); improved personal view of self (77%); and provided personal growth and development (64%). The authors conclude that “these programs are a powerful, economically beneficial option for gifted youth, an option that has long lasting effects” (p. 207).

Gentry, M., & Ferriss, S. (1999). StATS: A model of collaboration to develop science talent among rural students. Roeper Review, 21, 316-320.

This article examines the effectiveness of a service delivery model in which seventh and eighth grade students from three districts were bussed to a science program at the area vocational center. The program involved agri-environmental wilderness expeditions, independent study/mentorships, and home-school support services. Students were released from their classes and teachers worked with the science facilitators to compact curriculum and to eliminate extra work for the students on those days. Using eight years of evaluation data, the authors report that more than 85% of the students produce products with 35% continuing their studies after the conclusion

Gentry, M., & Owen, S. V. (1999). An investigation of the effects of total school flexible cluster grouping on identification, achievement, and classroom practices.

Gifted Child Quarterly, 43, 224-243.

The study examined the use of cluster grouping during a four-year period in a small, rural school district. The treatment sample included all of the students from two graduation class years, n=197. The comparison sample involved students who had not been involved in cluster grouping in a demographically similar school, n=137. The Iowa Test of Basic Skills and the California Achievement Test were used to measure student achievement in both schools. Interviews were used to determine classroom factors that might affect student achievement. While the students in the treatment schools began with lower reading scores, they outperformed or equaled their comparison school counterparts after three years. In terms of math, students in the treatment school scored significantly higher than the comparison school during the three program years.

In the experimental group, students were regrouped by achievement for reading and math instruction in third, fourth, and fifth grades and between grades for high

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

29

achieving cluster teachers. Within class groups included interest grouping, cooperative grouping, and flexible grouping.

In addition, teachers created challenge through integrating high order thinking skills, developing critical thinking skills, using creative thinking skills, integrating problem solving, assigning projects, using acceleration, and adjusting assignments.

For both challenge and interest, the teachers spent time with high achievers and developed curricular extensions. For choice and interest, the teachers provided choice of partners or groups and provided choice to work alone or together. For challenge, the teacher used open-ended questioning, offered independent study, used challenge questions, implemented curriculum compacting, and provided enrichment experiences and choice of problems or assignments.

Hébert, T. P., & Neumeister, K. L. S. (2000).

University mentors in the elementary classroom: Supporting the intellectual, motivational, and emotional needs of high-ability students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 24, 122-148.

Case study and ethnographic research methods were used to examine how a fourth-grade teacher implemented a mentoring program and its effect on the students. Data collection included observations, interviews, and document review.

Through thoughtful program design, the teacher was able to create 18 successful partnerships between her students and the university mentors. The program design included preplanning, instructional strategies, and flexibility. In preplanning, the teacher selected a topic, developed thorough guidelines, developed a research journal for each student that included a record of resources, procedures for note taking, steps to writing rough and finished drafts, and other helpful organizational strategies. She was flexible in allowing the university students to determine their own weekly meeting times with their students and coached the mentors from the sidelines (mentors met with their students twice a week for two to four hours). The teacher also implemented curriculum compacting so that the high ability students would have time to work with their mentors. At the conclusion of the program, the teacher organized a banquet for the mentors and the students’ theatrical presentations. The program met the goal of meeting differentiated needs of the students and created opportunities for new relationships between the university mentors and the teachers’ students.

Hébert, T. P., & Olenchak, F. R. (2000). Mentors for gifted underachieving males: Developing potential and realizing promise. Gifted Child Quarterly, 44, 196-207.

The authors examined the mentorship experience of three underachieving gifted high school students. Using semistructured interviews and document reviews, they found that in all cases the

30

pattern of underachievement was reversed.

The mentors exhibited open-minded and nonjudgmental characteristics, were caring adult friends, and developed a plan of strength and interest-based strategies.

Hertzog, N. B. (2003). Impact of gifted programs from the students’ perspectives.

Gifted Child Quarterly, 47, 131-143.

The author interviewed 50 college students about their prior experiences in gifted programs and their perspectives on the impact of these experiences on their lives. Programs ranged from high-level reading groups in first grade, to oncea-week pull-out programs for thinking games in elementary school, to honors or Advanced Placement classes in middle and high school. Most of the students expressed a frustration of belonging to a “gifted group,” citing an overwhelming sense of being different. They noted that the biggest differences between the general education classes and the gifted classes were the behavior of the students and the enthusiasm and characteristics of the teacher. They rated their experiences in gifted programs a 8.37 on a scale of one to 10.

Hunt, B. (1996/1997). The effect on mathematics achievement and attitude of homogeneous and heterogeneous grouping of gifted sixth grade students. The Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 8, 65-73.

This study examined math achievement and the attitude toward math achievement over 12 weeks of 208 gifted students who were placed in homogeneous or heterogeneous classrooms. The author administered a pre and post test to each group to determine mathematics achievement and attitude toward math. They found that identified gifted students who were homogeneously grouped gained in computation and completed more mathematics activities. They also found that the gifted students preferred working alone in both groups.

Hsu, L. (2003). Measuring the effectiveness of summer intensive physics courses for gifted students: A pilot study and agenda for research. Gifted Child Quarterly, 47, 212-218.

A total of 128 students enrolled in eight summer intensive physics courses for

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

academically gifted students. The courses were three weeks in length with a typical schedule consisting of six hours of class per weekday and roughly three hours of class during the weekend. Using a pre/post test design the authors found that each section made gains with the average gain of .45.

These average post test scores were also similar to the average post test scores of ordinary length classes.

Landrum, M. (2001). An evaluation of the catalyst program: Consultation and collaboration in gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 45, 139-151.

This article evaluates the catalyst program, which is a resource consultation and collaboration program in gifted education. The sample included six gifted education teachers assigned to single buildings, two itinerant gifted education teachers assigned to two or three school buildings, and 23 general education teachers in grades two to six with cluster groups of gifted learners in their classrooms. In addition, 39 gifted students in grades three to six and 53 nongifted students from the same classrooms participated in the study.

Within the large, urban school district, 10 elementary schools participated in the pilot project. Data included student academic performance, teacher observations, monthly consultation activity reports, and field notes. Both groups of students improved their performance on the Ross Test of Higher Cognitive Processes. After consultation, the observers noted an increase in the use of independent study and a variety of other differentiation strategies.

Following consultation, the general education teachers provided more wait time and differentiated education through advanced products and independent studies. The gifted education specialist spent time in pull-out lessons, team teaching, developing pull-out materials for instruction, and disseminating materials to the general education teachers. Consultative and collaborative activities included “coplanning, coteaching, providing differentiated educational opportunities, linking gifted and general education curricula, sharing responsibility for student assessment, and gathering and distributing educational resources” (p. 148).

Lee, S. Y., & Olszewski-Kubilius, P. (2005).

Investigation of high school credit and placement for summer coursework taken outside of local schools. Gifted Child Quarterly, 49, 37-50.

This study examined the effects of fourth through twelfth grade gifted students’ participation in a summer program at a local university. The students scored at the 95th percentile or above on a math or verbal composite of a nationally normed, standardized achievement test, 500 or above on the SAT subtests or 21 to 24 on the ACT. Survey results revealed that 64.1% of the students received high school credit after taking the summer courses with 41.9% having the course grade factored into their overall GPA. Reasons for not granting high school credit for the summer course included a policy against credit for any outside-of-school coursework, dissimilar material to a school course, no preapproval, too few instructional hours in the summer class, and not requesting credit.

At the middle school level, administrators placed the summer course evaluation in the student’s file or shared the evaluation with the student’s teachers. Programmatic actions included placing the student in a high-ability group, in the next course in the sequence, or in an advanced course at a high school. When no action was taken, administrators frequently cited the lack of advanced courses at the middle school. The authors conclude that parents need to petition more actively for credit or placement for their children.

Melber, L. M. (2003). Partnerships in science learning: Museum outreach and elementary gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 47, 251-258.

This study examined a museum program and its effects on high achieving fourth and fifth graders. The museum program consisted of eight school-based sessions, held twice weekly, that allowed students to participate in activities that were similar to the scientific processes employed by museum scientists and incorporated actual museum specimens and artifacts. The ninth session occurred in the museum where students met the scientists and visited areas normally closed to the public. Pre- and post questionnaires indicated that students were more interested in being a scientist, had less stereotyped ideas about a scientist’s work, and gained content knowledge, particularly in areas that involved hands-on activities with insects and arthropods.

Moon, S. M., Swift, M., & Shallenberger, A. (2002). Perceptions of a self-contained class for fourth- and fifth-grade students with high to extreme levels of intellectual giftedness. Gifted Child Quarterly, 46, 64-79.

This qualitative case study investigated the effectiveness of a fourth and fifth grade self-contained classroom with curriculum differentiated for highly intellectually gifted students during its first year of implementation. Data were collected using observations, interviews, comparison essays, and a goal-attainment scale. While the classroom provided a challenging environment for the students, individual students reactions varied, particularly in the emotional and social areas. Some of the students liked learning more, experiencing more challenge and the specific projects while others perceived the program negatively because of difficult homework, the teacher’s strictness, high expectations, and commuting and missing friends in their old schools.

Newman, J. L. (2005). Talents and type IIIs: The effects of the talents unlimited model on creative productivity in gifted youngsters. Roeper Review, 27, 84-90.

The purpose of this study was to examine the quality and number of completed students products as a result of a set of lessons that integrated the Talents Unlimited Model with the 10 steps of completing a Type III activity. The sample included students from third to sixth grades selected for enrichment programs through the School Enrichment Model from nine schools in three suburban areas in Birmingham, Alabama. Enrichment teachers completed training in both the Talents Unlimited and the Schoolwide Enrichment Model. Five out of the 10 teachers were randomly assigned to use a manual containing a series of 10 lessons that apply Talents Unlimited processes to real-world processes and the development of products. The treatment group included 59 students completing 27 products either individually or in small groups. The control group was made up of 45 students. The Student Product Assessment Form (Reis, 1981) was used with students to measure the quality of their own creative products.

Open-ended questionnaires were also administered to both students and teachers.

The data were analyzed with chi-square analysis and ANOVA. Results indicate that the lessons had a positive effect in reducing the number of students who did not complete their creative products. While all of the students in the experimental group finished their Type III products, 21% of students in the control group did not.

Ninety percent of the treatment students responded positively to being able to iden-

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

31

tify an interest area to study, 93% of them reported improvement in focusing on a topic, and 90% reported they were better at identifying a problem related to their chosen topic. Mean scores for the quality of experimental students products were significantly higher than the products from the students in the control group.

tored into their GPAs. The majority of the students made fours and fives on the AP exams. One major problem for half of the students was that no further courses were available in the same subject matter at their home schools.

Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Lee, S. Y. (2004).

Gifted adolescents’ talent development through distance learning. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 28, 7-35.

Olszewski-Kubilius, P., Lee, S. Y., Ngoi, M., & Ngoi, D. (2004). Addressing the achievement gap between minority and nonminority children by increasing access to gifted programs. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 28, 127-158.

This program, Learning Links, provided honors-level and Advanced Placement courses through distance learning to 186 6th-12th grade gifted students.

All of the students were identified through the Talent Search process. The authors investigated how the students used the program, the receptivity of school districts of the program’s scores, and its effects on the students’ subsequent performance on AP exams. Teachers proficient in their respective subject areas provided courses in either a by-mail or an online format (p. 14). Survey results indicated that the students were satisfied with the quality of communications with the instructors but were dissatisfied with the lack of face-toface interactions. About half of the students received high school credit for the course while 20% said that their schools would not give them credit despite their requests. About one third of the students who received credit had their grades fac-

The authors described the academic effects on elementary and middle school gifted students who participated in Project EXCITE, a collaborative program between a university-based gifted center and local school districts. Students who participated in the program were nominated by their schools, scored a stanine of six or higher on the Naglieri, and performed at a reasonably high level on an achievement test. The program components included parent education and support meetings that included a home computer, peer support with students serving as helpers in after-school classes, academic enrichment activities after school at their local high schools, and individualized support using a review class held in the spring on Saturdays. All of these components focused on increasing the number of minority students in the Advanced Placement math and science classes at the high school level. Evaluation results showed that nearly 80% of the stu-

dents were retained in the program with 63% qualifying for placement in prealgebra in grade 6, which represented a 300% increase in the percentage of minority children qualifying for the advanced math program. All of the EXCITE students either met or exceeded standards of math and science performance on the state criterion-referenced tests.

Shore, B. M., & Delcourt, M. A. B. (1996).

Effective curricular and program practices in gifted education and the interface with general education. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 20, 138-154.

The article describes recommended practices in gifted education based on a review of the research since 1990. Based on the review program and curricular practices were placed into one of four categories: (a) those that are uniquely appropriate to gifted students; (b) practices requiring some additional support in order to be considered uniquely appropriate; (c) those that are effective for all students; and (d) practices for which there is insufficient evidence to make a case for their appropriateness as unique procedures for high-ability learners. Service delivery models that were uniquely appropriate were pull-out, separate classes, and special school programs. Gifted students who were in these programs outperformed their gifted peers who were in within-class arrangements and schools without gifted programs. Students in special schools had the most positive attitudes toward learning. Those from pullout programs, within-class models, and special schools had higher perceptions of their scholastic abilities than children from separate class programs. “Gifted students’ learning is directly related to the extent that differentiation they experienced” (p. 142).

Uresti, R., Goertz, J., & Bernal, E. M. (2002).

Maximizing achievement for potentially gifted and talented and regular minority students in a primary classroom. Roeper Review, 25, 27-31.

The purpose of this study was to try and meet the cognitive, emotional, and social needs of young, culturally and linguistic different children in an inclusive classroom. The sample consisted of 24 low socioeconomic first grade Hispanic students (12 were native Spanish speakers learning English and 12 were English Spanish bilingual students). None of the students had been identified as gifted at the beginning of the year, but the class was one where English was taught as a

32

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

second language. The researchers used the Autonomous Learner Model’s (ALM) three dimensions of Orientation to the Center, Individual Development, and Enrichment Activities. A rotating schedule for students to run their own center activities, as well as a topic selected for individual enrichment allowed curriculum to be differentiated for each student. The class was exposed to the ALM for a 24 week period. Afterwards, the Iowa Test of Basic Skills or the Spanish Assessment of Basic Education—Second Edition was administered (12 students took the ITBS, and 12 took the SABE-2). All scores improved from previous test scores; students who took the ITBS scored significantly higher in reading and language than in mathematics, and students who took the SABE scored higher in reading in Spanish than in language and mathematics. The authors state, “There is, of course, no way to ensure that these good mean scores were due directly to the abbreviated implementation of the model… What we believe that we know ‘for sure’ is that the atmosphere in [the class] changed radically during the last twenty-four weeks of school, when she began using centers and

individualized projects and instruction, and that the parents noticed changes in their children’s behaviors and attitudes as well” (p. 31). They concluded that the selfdirected learning center activities seemed to cultivate the potential giftedness in some of the children in order to receive full advantage of the school’s gifted resources and services.

Wilson, V., Litle, J., Coleman, M. R., & Gallagher, J. (1997/1998). Distance learning: One school’s experience on the information highway. Journal for Secondary Gifted Education, 9, 89-100.

This study examined the effects of the distance learning experiences that were connected to the North Carolina School of Science and Mathematics. The authors used questionnaires, surveys, interviews, focus groups, observations, document reviews, and student products to examine the effects of the program. They found that the students who participated in distance learning activities felt that they had access to outstanding faculty, opportunities to take courses that were not previously

available to them, the chance to interact with students from other schools, an opportunity to test their “metal” against prestigious courses, a chance to develop independent skills and study skills, and an opportunity to hone their communication and thinking skills. Disadvantages noted related to technical difficulties, personal time with the instructor, and the immediacy of feedback.

References: Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C. C. (1982). Effects of ability grouping on secondary school students: A meta-analysis of evaluation findings. American Educational Research Journal, 19, 415-428.

Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C. C. (1997). Ability grouping. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (2nd ed., pp. 230-242). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Rogers, K. (1993). Grouping the gifted and talented: Questions and answers. Roeper Review, 16, 8-12.

Slavin, R. E. (1987). Ability grouping: A best-evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 57, 293-336.

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

33

Guidelines for Article Submissions

34

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.

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: 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

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

CALL FOR NOMINATIONS TAGT Executive Board Positions

Elections will be held in Summer 2006 to fill openings for Regional Director and Officer positions on the TAGT 2007 Executive Board.

Individuals elected to the Board will take office in November 2006.

Regional Director Positions to be Filled: Regions II, IV, VI, VIII, X, XII, XIV, XVI, XVIII, XX Requirements for Regional Director Positions: Current TAGT membership; must reside in the region where a vacancy exists.

Officer Positions to be Filled: President-Elect, First Vice-President, Second Vice-President, Secretary/Treasurer Requirements for Officer Positions: Current TAGT membership; served at least one year on the Executive Board or as an appointed member of a TAGT standing committee; a Texas resident.

To be considered for nomination to the TAGT Executive Board, please complete the information below and return by May 1, 2006 to: TAGT Elections Committee, 406 East 11th Street, Suite 310, Austin, TX 78701-2617.

Name: __________________________________________________ Phone: _______________________________ Address: __________________________________________ City: _________________________ Zip: __________ Fax: _______________________ E-Mail: __________________________________________ Region: _________ I.

Position for Which You Wish to be Considered: _______________________________________________

II.

Previous and/or Current TAGT Service (if applicable): Officer on the TAGT Executive Board: _________________________________________________________ Name of Office Dates of Service Regional Director on the TAGT Executive Board: _________________________________________________ Name of Office Dates of Service TAGT Standing Committee: __________________________________________________________________ Name of Committee Dates of Service

III.

Current Position and Affiliation: _____________________________________________________________ (district/campus, university, business, parent, etc.)

IV.

Formal Education: Degree(s)

Special Certificates/Endorsements

Credentialing Institutions

_________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________ V.

List five current or past activities, jobs, offices, etc. (professional or volunteer) which you believe will contribute to your success in carrying out the obligations of the position for which you wish to be considered: _________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________

VI.

On a separate sheet of paper, provide a statement of 50 words or less indicating what you hope to accomplish, should you be elected to the TAGT Executive Board. Your statement, or a portion of it, will appear in the June/July issue of the TAGT Newsletter.

VII.

Attach a brief resume or curriculum vita (not to exceed two typewritten pages.)

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

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

Debbie Lopez

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